Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

European Commission

Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what environmental issues Her Majesty's Government are in dispute with the European Commission.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): There are no outstanding cases.

Mr. Mackinlay: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that some of us find that answer quite amazing? It is known that the Government have been tardy in implementing the water directives, with the consequence that the Commission brought us before the European Court. Can he assure us that the nitrogen oxide directives will be implemented in full, especially in the east Thames corridor, which does not have the air quality monitoring units that exist elsewhere? They are desperately needed because of the high and rising incidence of asthma in the south-east of England.

Mr. Gummer: The United Kingdom has an extremely good record in implementing and enforcing European Community law. Between 1988 and 1992, a number of environmental complaints against the UK were examined by the Commission, but they resulted in only 2 per cent. of the European Court of Justice environmental judgments against member states. That makes our record very much better than that of most other member states.
The hon. Gentleman was surprised by my answer only because he has been taken in by the publicity of his own Front Bench, which always runs down Britain instead of supporting its very fine environmental record.

Mr. Sykes: Is not it wrong for the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay)—a constituency that is not exactly everyone's idea of an environmentally sensitive area—to trump up charges and create divisions in a week when his party is daily beset by divisions, left, right and centre?

Mr. Mackinlay: At least the hotels do not fall in the sea.

Mr. Gummer: The House will accept that in these matters it is better to keep to the relevant fact, which is that there are no outstanding cases against the United Kingdom.

That shows that we are doing our best to meet the very high standards that we set ourselves and which other countries do not meet to the same degree.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be a little more open with the House and admit that there are areas in which the European Community has said that we should do things, but where the British Government and people have not. The obvious example is the one that he admitted to the House just over a week ago: that we have only 80 per cent.—not 100 per cent.—compliance with the bathing water directive and the need for clean beaches.
Will the right hon. Gentleman now introduce a package that will allow us to obey European law and comply with the directive? Will he work out, across the parties, if necessary, and with local authorities and other agencies how the money can be found to implement that?

Mr. Skinner: Go on: tell him he's a two-faced Liberal.

Mr. Gummer: I always try not to state the obvious from the Dispatch Box.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) must accept that we are meeting the requirements of the European Community to which we are signatories. The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we should do so faster than we have agreed. He will remember that he has not suggested that we should spend even more than the £3,000 million a year that we currently spend. As usual, he wants us to do more than the EC wants, but he is not prepared to pay the bill. Whenever he is offered the bill, he tells his constituents that someone else will pay.

Mr. George Howarth: Does the Secretary of State accept that, despite his protestations to the contrary, the problem is seriously growing? How does he explain that, in coastal towns, 40 per cent. of the raw sewage goes straight into the sea? How can he explain or defend the fact that, on the urban waste water directive—another thing to which the Government have signed up—there is no programme in place to meet the compliance which is expected by 2005? The Secretary of State is finding excuses not to do things. When will we have a Secretary of State who tells us how he will meet the directives in the time expected of him?

Mr. Gummer: We are committed to meeting our requirements and obligations and we are spending £3,000 million a year. The hon. Gentleman can hardly say that. When challenged last week, the Labour party produced no figures or facts and no policy on water at all.
The hon. Gentleman should remember that, in terms of European Court of Justice judgments, Italy, Belgium, Germany, France, Greece, Netherlands and Luxembourg all have worse records than the United Kingdom. We have one judgment against us, which shows how very much better we are doing than most other EC countries.

Mr. Mans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in many Select Committee reports associated with the environment, it was clear that much of the evidence which the Commission brought forward in relation to the directives was faulty? The Commission is now modifying considerably the criteria on which these directives are based. Again and again it was shown that the British Government are well ahead of the game, compared with many other member states of the European Community.

Mr. Gummer: I have had further discussions with the Commission and its view—it is also the view of the United Kingdom—is that we have to base matters on the best available science. It seems to me that the only place where people think we are not meeting the requirements and are not seeking to take the lead on the environment is in the House of Commons—on the basis of what are, I think, party political arguments rather than facts.

Local Government Finance

Mr. Illsley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to alter the qualifying date for council tax transitional relief or introduce an exemption from the date in extenuating circumstances.

The Minister for Local Government and Planning (Mr. David Curry): None, Madam.

Mr. Illsley: Is not it incumbent on the Government to bring in some measure for people who have been prejudiced by the qualifying date for transitional relief? The Minister will be aware of a couple in my constituency who, on the qualifying date, had living with them temporarily their daughter and son-in-law. Because the following year the same date was carried forward, they will never be able to take advantage of transitional relief.
Should we be looking at a better use of transitional relief, bearing in mind the fact that Barnsley claimed about £345,000 whereas Wandsworth claimed an incredible £22 million? That works out at £4 per household in my constituency, compared with £195 per household in Wandsworth.

Mr. Curry: If transitional relief was to be a permanent system, where there had been anomalies one would have to put them right. But by its very definition, it is transitional. We had to have a simple and clear system and we took the last day of the community charge and the first day of the council tax, which was the obvious comparison. It was inevitable that a handful of people would be disadvantaged by that, but, no matter where we had taken that particular point, some people would have been disadvantaged.
I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's constituents, but the fact that the scheme is transitional and that we set up as simple a scheme as possible means that it is unrealistic to try to make more complications. As for Wandsworth, it must be clear from an arithmetical point of view that starting with a community charge of zero and moving to a different system will cause a much steeper transition than for councils that started from a lot more than zero. It is arithmetic, not a deception.

Mr. Jessel: Is my hon. Friend aware that Liberal-controlled Richmond-upon-Thames borough council increased the council tax, with or without transitional relief, by more than any of the other 32 London boroughs? There were no extenuating circumstances for them and, on 5 May, they lost six council seats.

Mr. Curry: I am pleased to hear what my hon. Friend says. Where the level of taxation and the level of performance of local councils was a strong issue in the elections, Conservative councils, with their record of low taxation, did very well. I have no doubt that people who voted otherwise last week will soon discover what they voted for. They may have their revenge in a few years' time.

Housing

Mr. Soley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to use Government-owned housing to assist housing associations and councils to meet housing need.

The Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction (Sir George Young): Government Departments are urged to make best use of their empty residential property, through disposal where possible, or by leasing to local housing providers. We encourage local authorities and housing associations to consider the scope for using empty Government-owned homes to meet housing need.

Mr. Soley: Is not it time to stop the nonsense whereby the Government dump thousands of empty Government-owned properties on to the private market and therefore depress house prices, which is bad for the economy? Through leaseback or other schemes, the Government could transfer those houses to housing associations and councils in areas such as Bromley, where there are empty Air Force homes at Biggin Hill, or Slough, where former Army and Air Force homes are empty. Two local authority areas could get people out of bed and breakfast, save money and help restore the economy.

Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to learn that only last month 119 Ministry of Defence properties in Finningley were sold to the South Yorkshire housing association and that more than 1,000 MOD properties are on lease to local authorities or housing associations. It must be right for the MOD to put on the market those properties that it does not need and to give first-time home buyers the opportunity to acquire them. I see nothing wrong with that policy.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend accept that housing need would be less if local authorities had fewer empty council homes? He will remember his visit to Hackney, where 9 per cent. of local authority housing stock is empty.

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is right. There are 71,000 empty local authority homes. That is more than the total number of families in temporary accommodation. The main culprits are Labour-controlled local authorities. It would be in the interests of meeting those housing needs if we could make better use of the potential.

Homelessness

Ms Coffey: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to bring forward proposals to change the current homelessness legislation.

Sir George Young: I hope to announce the Government's conclusions before the summer recess.

Ms Coffey: Will the Minister confirm that, of the 9,500 responses to his Green Paper, an overwhelming number criticised the Government's proposal to remove the homelessness safety net? Will he listen to the advice that has been given to him by housing and care professionals and withdraw his proposals?

Sir George Young: The hon. Lady will know that the consultation document contained not one but a range of proposals and that some of those proposals—for example,


putting more emphasis on prevention and making better use of the private rented sector—commanded support. The Government will of course reflect on the weight of the representations. When we announce our decisions, I hope before the summer recess, I trust that some of the more alarmist propaganda that has been flying around will be put to rest.

Mr. Burns: Will my right hon. Friend go some way towards dispelling some of the alarmist comments that have been made? Does he accept that the consultation paper keeps a safety net for the most vulnerable members of society and that it prevents queue-jumping, which causes so much misery to those who are pushed down the list because of queue-jumpers?

Sir George Young: As I said in the debate on 26 January, there is no question of vulnerable people, including families with children, not having a home or not having any suitable accommodation. I agree with what my hon. Friend said at the end of his question. It is right to have a fair approach to the allocation of rented housing and to allocate on the basis of need, not on the basis of whether, at some time in the past, people acquired the label of being statutorily homeless.

Mr. Battle: Given the number of adverse responses and the tone that the Minister has now adopted on the Government's consultation paper on access to housing, will he confirm that he believes that a better way to approach the matter is to consider the code of guidance given to local authorities about allocation, rather than to change the laws by repealing good homelessness legislation, which ensures that the homeless have a statutory right to a secure home?

Sir George Young: No, it would be wrong at this stage to rule out primary legislation. Some of the proposals in the Green Paper need primary legislation and at this stage I am not disposed to rule that out.

Private Rented Accommodation

Mr. Garnier: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he has taken to increase the availability of private rented accommodation.

Sir George Young: The private rented sector has expanded considerably since deregulation in 1989. A number of initiatives have been developed to revive the sector and increase the availability of rented accommodation.

Mr. Garnier: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the Harborough district local draft plan, which requires the building of several thousand houses in the villages of Billesdon, Great Glen, Kibworth Beauchamp and Kibworth Harcourt, will do nothing whatever to increase the availability of rented private housing? Does he also accept that what it will achieve is to destroy those villages in particular and rural south-east Leicestershire in general?

Sir George Young: As my hon. Friend will know, the Harborough plan is in draft form at present. Proposals will be formally placed on deposit for objections to be made later this year and my hon. Friend has rehearsed a number of those objections. They can then be examined at a public inquiry.

Mr. Pike: The Minister will recognise that there would be little private rented sector housing if it were left purely to market forces and that rent allowances are absolutely crucial to underpinning the private rented sector. Does he recognise the difficulties that have been caused to local authorities because of the increased portion of the rent allowance that they must meet, which is causing problems to many local authorities at present?

Sir George Young: There would be even less private rented accommodation if we had listened to the Labour party over the past 20 or 30 years. The factor that the hon. Gentleman mentioned—the percentage of housing benefit that falls on local ratepayers—is taken into account each year.

Mr. Brazier: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the provision of more private sector accommodation is central to the idea of providing diverse solutions to the problems of homelessness, but that that should not distract us from the central point that he made earlier: that we must continue to have a unified list with genuine flexibility for local authorities if they are to be free to tackle homelessness in the way they wish to do?

Sir George Young: I agree with my hon. Friend. I hope that all hon. Members will welcome the increase in the number of households renting from private sector landlords. The figure has increased from 1.6 million in 1988 to just under 2 million in 1993. If one is genuinely trying to increase the supply of good-quality accommodation to help those in housing need, that increased supply is something that all of us who share an interest in housing should applaud.

Water Disconnections

Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received concerning disconnections of domestic water supply.

The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. Robert Atkins): My right hon. Friend receives representations regularly.

Mr. Foulkes: The Minister will agree that it is a disgrace that, at the end of the 20th century in England and Wales, nearly 250 families have their water supply cut off every week. Does he agree that as it will continue to be illegal in Scotland for water to be disconnected, it would be sensible to apply that to England and Wales as well?

Mr. Atkins: I cannot comment on what happens in Scotland—that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. Disconnections have been available since the Water Act 1945, so they are hardly new, but the number of disconnections is going down regularly each year.

Mr. Dickens: Does my hon. Friend agree that a "no disconnect" policy would be a "no pay" policy, that most disconnections are reconnected within 48 hours while the remainder occur in empty properties and that water boards give people many options to pay? What on earth are we talking about?

Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend will be delighted to know, as I am, that the area that supplies water to our constituents


had a survey in November last year among well over 1,000 representative householders, 82 per cent. of whom said that they wanted the disconnection policy maintained.

Mr. Chris Smith: However, is not it a demonstration of peculiar incompetence even for this Government that the Minister tells us that disconnection is essential in England and Wales, while on 14 April the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland not only said that disconnections should remain illegal in Scotland, but placed a clause in the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill specifically to that effect? Should not the Government be saying the same thing everywhere in Britain: that the disconnection of domestic water supplies—the removal of the means to life and health—has no place in a civilised society?

Mr. Atkins: I am an Englishman and I can speak only for England. In England, for which I have responsibility, the number of disconnections is going down. According to the regional company responsible for water supplies in the north-west, the vast majority of its customers want the disconnection policy to be maintained. I must remind the House that the policy to allow for disconnections was included in the Water Act 1945, so nothing has changed.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree with my experience of dealing with constituents who need to be disconnected that the water companies generally deal with them very sympathetically? Does he also agree that if people do not pay, the water companies have to increase their charges for everyone else to make up for the shortfall?

Mr. Atkins: In the present circumstances, a court judgment must be made and only if the arrears are still outstanding is there the possibility of a disconnection order being made. That is an exhaustive procedure and, as I have already told the House, the number of disconnections is decreasing annually. That policy is, apparently, supported by water users and consumers, who wish it to be maintained.

Standard Spending Assessments

Mr. John Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to revise the present standard spending assessments system.

Mr. Curry: We intend to discuss with the local authority associations a number of possible changes in standard spending assessments.

Mr. Evans: Does the Minister agree that, in view of the corruption in Westminster city council, revealed by the BBC "Panorama" programme on Monday night, and the apparent connivance of Ministers to rig grant to Westminster, perhaps the only worthwhile revision would be to remove the grant allocation system from the hands of Ministers and put it in the hands of an independent grant commission?

Mr. Curry: I do not agree with that for one minute. The Select Committee on the Environment examined the way in which SSAs were distributed and concluded that it was done entirely objectively. I have no doubt that the Labour party ran over the system with a fine-toothed comb, but it has not managed to discover any bias in the system—

because it is not there. For a member of the Labour party, which spends its life talking about quangos, to propose setting up another one is slightly curious.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my hon. Friend agree that the area cost adjustment, which applies only in the south-east of England, has absolutely no basis in fact or logic and that the sooner it is done away with the better? Once that happens, areas such as Dorset will start to benefit from the real costs of providing services rather than working under a fudge factor, which was introduced to stop the high-spending Labour councils in London going bankrupt.

Mr. Curry: I do not agree with my hon. Friend. The area cost adjustment would not exist if there were no objective reason for it. We examined it carefully. We must, however, consider the way in which it tapers as it leaves central London. I have made it clear to the local authority associations that it will be one of the focuses for the continued review of SSA systems.

Mr. Snape: Has the Minister seen the Department of Environment's "Index of Social Deprivation", which reveals that Sandwell is the ninth poorest borough in England? Many other black country boroughs feature in that list of deprivation. Is he aware that, today, the Tory leader of Walsall council said that the Government must face the fact that the shire counties have been treated much better than inner-city areas? Does not that sort of national corruption of local government finance deserve a "Panorama" programme of its own? Is not it about time that the Government recognised the fact that local authorities, particularly Labour-controlled ones, are being held back from what they are trying to do by the financial rigging of the Government?

Mr. Curry: That is completely untrue. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the councils that receive the largest grant, he will see that they are all in the inner cities and Labour controlled. If he reads further from the "Index of Social Deprivation", he will discover that Westminster comes 26th and St. Helens comes 54th. That justifies the differential, does it not?

Dr. Spink: Is my hon. Friend aware that in a recent report of the Select Committee on Education it was proposed that the education element of the SSA should be removed and that it should be calculated under an alternative common funding formula? Will he consider that report and discuss it with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education?

Mr. Curry: I am perfectly willing to discuss improvements in the system. At the moment, the system is formula-driven. What matters in that case is to ensure that the formula picks up real needs as sensitively as it can and distributes them to where the need is. Therefore, we shall have to continue to review some elements, especially of social need, and we shall do so. People try to make out special cases for this, that or the other. It is always possible to argue that it would be nice to have more money here or more money there, but there is an absolutely equitable system of distribution and no one has been able to prove to the contrary. They cannot prove it because it is not true.

Mr. Straw: In the new spirit of rationality that has broken out between the Front Benches, the Minister must surely recognise that one of the reasons why the Conservative party had its worst results for more than 50


years in the local elections and the Labour party its best results for 13 years, is a lack of confidence in the impartiality of the SSA grant system. There was overwhelming criticism of that system not only from the Labour party but from council tax payers, who simply could not understand the fairness of the system. As the Environment Select Committee made many criticisms of the SSA system, and as the Audit Commission recommended an independent grant commission, why does the Minister continue in his refusal to consider that and to begin discussions across the Chamber about that sensible proposal?

Mr. Curry: I did quite a lot of knocking on doors during the local election campaign—[Interruption.]—especially in Wandsworth, Westminster and Kensington, and I was not engaged in spontaneous discussion about the SSA system at many of them. We have an objective system and the local authority associations co-operate with it fully. We are committed to ensuring that we make that system as finely tuned as possible without its becoming so complex as to be incomprehensible. We have set out on a good course. A further review is under way and I see no reason to change that.

Mineral Planning Guidance

Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make clear in his revision of MPG3 that environmental acceptability is in the national interest in relation to opencast applications.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): The draft revised guidelines withdraw the strong presumption in favour of opencast development which existed previously and replace it with a test of whether a proposed opencast application is environmentally acceptable. Those guidelines are now up for consultation and we are considering all comments carefully, with a view to publishing final guidelines in the summer.

Mr. Gunnell: I thank the Minister for that reply. Local people, however—especially in West Yorkshire—are so used to losing appeals against opencast applications that they will need to see the policy worked out in practice. Will he make it clear to planning inspectors in the future that national interests for coal must not be pitted against the environment, and that the quality of the environment matters and is in the national interest?

Mr. Baldry: In Leeds, only two opencast applications have been lost on appeal. The system is extremely fair in that regard. As I have made clear to the House on many occasions, the revised guidance will impose a test of whether an application is environmentally acceptable. I should have thought that the whole House would recognise that as an advance on the current situation.

Mr. Oppenheim: With cheap coal readily available on world markets, is it not madness to rip up the countryside of our crowded island? However, bearing in mind the fact that we are meant not to be being nasty to each other at the moment, will my hon. Friend gently remind Opposition Members that decisions on opencast mining used to be made by the Department of Energy, which habitually passed applications on the nod, before a Conservative

Government devolved that power to county councils? Can we now continue with that fine record of tightening controls on opencast mining?

Mr. Baldry: That is exactly what the draft planning guidance does. It imposes a tough environmental test. If there were an application for opencast mining on a green-field site, the local mineral planning authority would have to bear in mind the fact that it is a green-field site when deciding whether to allow that planning application. Obviously, different criteria would apply if it were considering a derelict land site.

Mr. Henderson: Does the Minister accept that the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) has hit the nail on the head? People in the north and the midlands where opencast mining is proposed are overwhelmingly opposed to opencast developments. If opencast opportunities arose in Suffolk, Coastal or Oxfordshire, the Minister and his boss would find that public opinion there was the same. In conducting the review, will the Minister accept that public opinion does not believe that environmental acceptability is a sufficiently strong test because of the amount of judgment involved and that the need for coal should also be demonstrated before approval is given?

Mr. Baldry: No, it is not the purpose of the planning system to determine whether there is a requirement for a specific mineral. Rather, it must strike a balance. In this instance, the planning system must strike a balance between economic need and environmental acceptability. That is what this planning guidance does, and I believe that it will do it extremely well.

Mrs. Angela Knight: My hon. Friend will be aware that local communities dislike the prospect of opencasting. Three such proposals affect my constituency. Will he assure me that his new MPG3 guidelines will take fully into account the environmental impact of opencasting, including the consequence of increased heavy traffic on the road network in surrounding towns and villages?

Mr. Baldry: If hon. Members look at the draft guidance they will see, set into it in considerable detail, the factors that local planning authorities must take into account: visual impact, noise, transport movements—exactly the concerns mentioned by my hon. Friend—dust, and water pollution. The mineral planning authorities will have to bear in mind a range of environmental considerations in determining whether a planning application is environmentally acceptable. I am therefore more than willing to give my hon. Friend the assurance that she requests.

Inner Cities

Mr. Mudie: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the Association of Metropolitan Authorities to discuss inner cities.

Mr. Gummer: I met Jeremy Beacham on Monday 9 May.

Mr. Mudie: The Minister will be aware that local authorities fear and believe that the single regeneration budget is a device for disguising spending cuts. Why did the urban programme—the main policy and vehicle for combating deprivation in inner cities—spend £236 million


two years ago, whereas this year it is spending £85 million, which is a cut of £151 million? Does that not confirm that the fears of local authorities are correct?

Mr. Gummer: No, it confirms that the urban programme has been superseded by a number of other programmes that we are using to deal with the problems of our inner cities. The hon. Gentleman will note that in the past we used to go to the United States and other countries to see how they did things and to learn from them, but now they come to see what we are doing. For example, when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister visited President Clinton, Mayor Murphy of Pittsburgh drew attention to the success and model provided by our urban policy. It is now the United States experts who come to the United Kingdom to learn, rather than the other way round, and the Germans and Australians are following suit.

Mr. Devlin: Is it not encouraging how Labour-controlled authorities such as Hartlepool, Stockton-on-Tees and Middlesbrough have taken a leaf from the partnership ethic expounded by the Teesside development corporation and other development corporations and have put forward successful city challenge bids, enabling them to use budgets provided by the Government and the private sector to rebuild inner city areas?

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The establishment of the integrated regional offices and the single regeneration budget has been widely welcomed even by people who are politically opposed to us, because they see that we can approach the problems of the inner city in an integrated and holistic way instead of in a partial manner. I therefore hope that the Opposition will continue their support, as they do in the countryside.

Mr. Vaz: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that, far from solving the enormous problems faced by urban areas, the single regeneration budget will make life much more difficult for the people who run our major towns and cities? Will he assure us that the shortfall in urban aid which the introduction of the single regeneration budget has created will be made up in full by the Government as a matter of urgency?

Mr. Gummer: I do not want to transgress the delicate feeling in the House at the moment, but when we announced the single regeneration budget the hon. Gentleman said that it was a cover for a cut and that there would be less than £1.4 billion in 1994–95. In fact, we announced £1.4 billion—precisely the figure that we had given—so the hon. Gentleman has asked a question about something that does not exist. We are putting very significant amounts of money into the inner cities. This is working extremely well and is very widely welcomed. What is more, it is over and above the substantial main programme of investment. The hon. Gentleman should concentrate his fire on reality and stop trying to pretend that things are going wrong in areas where we are doing extremely well.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to revive inner cities is to give the people who live in them a direct investment in the making of decisions that affect their lives? Does he agree that housing action trusts, local management of schools and grant-maintained schools do precisely that? Is it not

somewhat hypocritical for the Labour party to argue for greater local decision-making while opposing each and every such measure?

Mr. Gummer: I am very much in favour of the subsidiarity to which my hon. Friend refers. Speaking to an audience that included a very large number of Labour councillors, I noticed that when I said that I wanted more subsidiarity from national to local government they cheered, but when I said that I thought that there ought to be more subsidiarity from local government to schools and other organisations they booed. For them, subsidiarity seems to stop at a particular level; I believe in reaching down to the smallest possible unit in running the government of the country.

Local Government

Mr. Wareing: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to restore powers and functions removed from local government during the past 15 years.

Mr. Curry: The functions of local government have always been subject to change. The Government believe that responsibility should be delegated to the level most consistent with competence, practicality and cost-effectiveness.

Mr. Wareing: Does the Minister realise that millions of people, of all parties and of none, deplore the fact that local authorities have been denuded of so many of their powers and functions since the Conservative Government came to power? Local self-government has been replaced by a vast quangocracy stuffed with Tory placemen and placewomen who are accountable to no one other than the most highly centralising Government in all Europe. Does that not amount to disfranchisement of the electors at local level?

Mr. Curry: I never quite understand why the hon. Gentleman is so attached to the impenetrable bureaucracy of Whitehall, county hall and town hall. What we are concerned about is the delivery of services closer to the people. It is the people who count—not the bureaucrats or, for that matter, the councils. The hon. Gentleman will know that, for example, in Merseyside there is an urban development corporation, on the board of which there are three councillors, spending £156 million; a city challenge programme with provision of £131 million; a task force; and an objective 1 programme of £354 million. If he takes such exception to all of those, I am sure that we can arrange to cancel the funding.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Representing, as I do, a part of the borough of Macclesfield in Cheshire, which has one of only two councils in the whole north-west region that still have overall Conservative control, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he accepts that among some Conservative Members there is a strong feeling that if local government is to continue to exist it must have a range of reasonable and sensible responsibilities? Otherwise, we shall not get people of the right calibre to serve on councils. Will my hon. Friend ensure that local authorities continue to have proper, full and meaningful responsibilities so that we may continue to have that level of government in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Curry: Of course—that is precisely why, for example, care in the community and the administration of housing benefit have recently been passed back to local government. What matters is the quality of the service to the person who is receiving it. That is what government at all levels is about. It does not matter so much who delivers a service; what matters is that it should be provided efficiently. The obsession with county hall, city hall or Whitehall seems to me to be forgetting the essential ingredient—the person on the receiving end, whom government is there to benefit.

Mr. Janner: When considering restoring powers to local authorities, will the Minister do so in the light of the 1991 "Index of Local Conditions", which shows relative deprivation in our cities and which the Minister slid into the Library this morning without even providing copies for the parliamentary press? Will he look at what has happened since he took powers away from local authorities such as Leicester which, instead of being one of the wealthiest cities in Europe, is now among the 10 per cent. most deprived areas in this country?

Mr. Curry: If the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks that that is a function of local government powers, he is rather more imaginative than I had credited him. Local government has a remarkable opportunity in the shape of the single regeneration budget and programmes such as city challenge. Local government can act as an assembler of all the resources of the community to tackle particular problems. That is a new and much more exciting challenge than it has had in the past. The single regeneration budget, working with the private sector and public authorities, can make this work. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman should spend his time telling Leicester to get stuck into all that, instead of complaining about its powers.

Mr. Matthew Banks: While my hon. Friend discusses the possibility of returning powers to councils, especially in Merseyside, will he give me an assurance today that my constituents in Southport will have the chance to have returned to them the powers associated with unitary authority status which they enjoyed before 1974? Will he assure me that the Local Government Commission will listen to their pleas as early as 1995, so that we can get out of Sefton and get back on our own again? Sandgrounders rightly deserve that opportunity.

Mr. Curry: We have made it clear that when the Local Government Commission has completed its review of shire England we shall direct it to look at the boundaries of metropolitan areas where there is a strong case for its doing so.

Mr. Straw: Nothing better confirms the degree to which current Ministers and the party in Government have become infected with the virus of centralisation than the threat that the whole House heard the Minister issue to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing)—the threat that the funding for various bodies in Liverpool would be cancelled if my hon. Friend did not like what was going on. Does the Minister not understand that it is exactly that kind of arbitrary and capricious exercise of power that voters object to?
If the Minister is seriously concerned to return power to the people, why has he been a member of an Administration who have has passed more than 144

separate Acts centralising more and more power over local authorities and taking away from locally elected people the control of more than £24 billion of public spending?

Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman does not want power to the people—he wants power to the councils, which is not always the same thing. That is the fundamental difference between us. We have passed power to the people. We have passed power to school governors, to parents and to people who live on council estates. That is what passing power to the people means. Why is the hon. Gentleman obsessed with passing power to councillors, which is by no means the same thing or the most efficient way of doing things?

Mr. Wareing: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the deplorable reply given to my question by the Minister, I give notice that I intend to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Lester: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what financial savings could accrue to the council tax payers of Broxtowe if the joint districts proposal for the introduction of single-tier local government in Nottinghamshire were implemented.

Mr. Baldry: As the review is still in progress, all aspects of local government reorganisation in Nottinghamshire are a matter for the Local Government Commission, including the costing of options for structural change.

Mr. Lester: Is it not important, in the interim, that local constituents understand that the principal element in their new council tax bills is the amount levied on behalf of the Labour county council and not the proportion levied by their district council?

Mr. Baldry: Yes, one of the strong arguments in favour of unitary authorities is the straightforward idea of accountability. Having two local authorities can often confuse people and it is not always clear which is rendering a particular service. As my hon. Friend says, this can present particular difficulties in relation to council tax bills, since the lion's share—that rendered by the county council —has to be collected by the district council.

Mr. Heppell: Is the Minister aware that the figures range from about £600 million to more than £1 billion for the transitional changes? Those changes will have to be met by cuts in services as the Government do not plan to put in any other money to meet their cost. Was there a delay in Nottinghamshire because the commission now recognises that no one in Nottinghamshire either wants the change or wishes to pay for it?

Mr. Baldry: I do not think the hon. Gentleman's last comment is accurate. I suggest that he reads the comments of his Front-Bench colleagues in our local government debates.

Mr. Atkins: He should not bother.

Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend says that the hon. Gentleman should not bother, but it might be helpful for him to see that Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen purport to be in favour of unitary authorities. As to savings, some of the figures that have been bandied around are grossly exaggerated. Certainly each of the reorganisations agreed so far by the Local Government Commission estimates that the savings and receipts at the outset will well outweigh the


initial costs and that thereafter the savings will be continuous year on year. We have made it clear that we expect substantial long-term savings to follow the Local Government Commission recommendations.

Environmental Protection Agency

Mr. McGrady: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with his ministerial colleague in Northern Ireland concerning the establishment of an environmental protection agency.

Mr. Atkins: My officials are in contact with their opposite numbers in Northern Ireland, where my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland's approach reflects the differing circumstances there.

Mr. McGrady: I thank the Minister for his reply, but I am not sure that I understand what he means by the differing circumstances. He must be aware that some four years have passed since 1990, when the Select Committee on the Environment recommended strongly that such a board be set up in Northern Ireland. Since then, the Government have commissioned a thermal oxide reprocessing plant which, with the regulations attached to it, can allow a 900 per cent. increase in toxic atmospheric discharge and a 1,100 per cent. increase in the toxic discharge into the Irish sea. Is the Minister aware that people living on the eastern coast of Northern Ireland are concerned that the Department is both poacher and gamekeeper in environmental protection and that such an agency is urgently needed as an independent assessor?

Mr. Atkins: I am only too well aware of the hon. Gentleman's concerns as I was the Minister who took the decision, in the face of the Environment Select Committee, which came to interview me at Stormont on exactly the answers that were given. I recall that the answer was simply that I had a commitment to set up an environment agency in due course, that in Northern Ireland, where the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland has different responsibilities, there was no need for it at that stage, but that the Department of the Environment, represented by me as its Minister, was by no means opposed to such an agency.

Water Industry

Mr. Richards: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the level of investment in the water industry in 1978–79; and what is the expected level in 1992–93 expressed in constant prices.

Mr. Gummer: On a comparable basis at constant prices, water industry capital expenditure in 1978–79 was about £1.1 billion. By 1992–93, it had almost trebled to some £3.2 billion.

Mr. Richards: Is my right hon. Friend aware that about three weeks ago I opened phase 1 of a new sewage treatment plant in Kinmel bay in my constituency costing £23 million? Will my right hon. Friend and his hon. Friends now come to sunny Rhyl for their summer holidays, so that they can swim in the beautiful clean sea and enjoy the wonderful amenities there for family holidays?

Mr. Gummer: There is no doubt that Rhyl and the rest of that particularly beautiful north Wales coast is a fine place for a holiday and I am looking forward very much to doing some canvassing in the European elections in that area.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Is the Minister aware that the cost of this investment has been borne by many people who cannot afford to pay—that is, water rate payers and even those on low incomes? Is he further aware that this is leading to a very high rate of water disconnections in my constituency—the third highest in the country? Is it not time he stopped this extortion by water companies from people who cannot afford to pay?

Mr. Gummer: It is difficult to put the hon. Lady's question alongside the constant demands of Labour Members for even more spending. Where do they think the money comes from? In the end, it comes from the consumers of water. There is no other way of delivering these very large sums of money. As the hon. Lady is concerned about the situation, I hope that she will support the very careful and cost-effective way in which we are ensuring that we spend what is necessary without overspending. I am sure that her electors in Cambridge will want her to affirm her support, even though she may have to vote against her own Front Bench.

Mr. Nicholls: Although that may be jolly good news in Wales, the standards imposed by the European Commission on the west country mean that people in that region face an intolerable burden, with some 650,000 water charge payers being responsible for cleaning up one third of the nation's coast. While I accept that that is an obligation imposed by the EC and not Her Majesty's Government, will my right hon. Friend tell us what steps are being taken to ensure that the intolerable burden imposed by Europe will be ameliorated?

Mr. Gummer: I agree with my hon. Friend who, with his colleagues, has been consistent in pressing on me the very serious matter that he has raised here. We have looked at the way in which the burden falls upon all consumers so that it is as cost-effective as possible. I know that Mr. Ian Byatt is completing his discussions with the water companies and that we should have some direct figures very soon. I hope that my hon. Friend recognises how closely we have been watching the situation. I know that he has pressed hard on behalf of his constituents and others on this matter.

Local Referendums

Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the advantages and disadvantages of increasing the use of local referendums.

Mr. Baldry: I have made no assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of increasing the use of local referendums.

Mr. Prentice: Does the Minister appreciate that referendums are commonplace in Europe and are one way of enriching and revitalising public debate? After 15 years


of Conservative Government during which local authorities have lost powers, functions and relevance, would not the increased use of local referendums be one way to re-involve people in civic debate?

Mr. Baldry: That is absolute twaddle.

Sir Anthony Durant: Will my hon. Friend not dismiss the idea of referendums too easily? Will he also consider doing away with rate capping so that we can then expose those councils which spend wildly and a referendum can be held at the subsequent local government elections?

Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. If it were not for council tax capping, large numbers of Labour authorities would be only too keen to spend council tax payers' money like confetti.

Ozone Layer

Mr. Deva: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action the United Kingdom is taking to phase out the production of substances damaging the ozone layer.

Mr. Gummer: The production of halons has already ceased, CFCs and carbon tetrachloride will cease by the end of this year, and methyl chloroform by the end of next year.

Mr. Deva: Does my right hon. Friend agree that congratulations are in order on the Government's achievement of those achievable targets? Does it not vindicate my view and that of the Government that it is far better to set targets which are easily achievable than to set targets which cannot be attained and which other countries have no intention of attaining?

Mr. Gummer: I agree with my hon. Friend, but I think that where we can raise the standards we ought to do so. I am pleased to say that the European Community as a whole is moving faster than the Montreal protocol requires with regard to chlorofluorocarbons, carbon tetrachloride and hydrochlorofluorocarbons. We have shown that, wherever we can, we will move faster than we are required to do.

Local Government Commission

Mr. Hutton: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the progress being made by the Local Government Commission.

Mr. Curry: The Local Government Commission has submitted final recommendations for 10 shire county areas. It is due to announce initial recommendations for a further group of shire counties, including Cumbria, in June.

Mr. Hutton: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Can he give me an assurance that, before any final proposals for Cumbria are made by the Local Government

Commission, there will be full and wide public consultation with my constituents and those elsewhere in the county so that the final shape of local government in the county of Cumbria can enjoy widespread and continuing public support?

Mr. Curry: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the commission must make initial recommendations and then a final recommendation. Up to that point, there is no role for the Government. When the commission makes its recommendation, we shall consult widely before we lay an order before the House. I expect that the hon. Gentleman will want to make representations at that time, and we will of course listen to him.

Mr. Barry Field: Will my hon. Friend ensure that the commission, which is charged with reviewing parish and town council representation in local government areas, points out to Opposition Members that under existing legislation it is possible to call a poll? If local authorities want a poll, they can already have one if they are enparished—rather than listen to the first cuckoos of spring on the Opposition Benches.

Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend, who has the advantage of representing an area that is about to be reorganised, speaks from great experience. I defer to his judgment.

Water Meters

Mr. Burden: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to monitor the installation of pre-payment water meters in council properties.

Mr. Atkins: A number of water companies are currently conducting trials of pre-payment water devices. The Director General of Water Services is monitoring the progress of these trials.

Mr. Burden: Will the Minister consider the case of Severn Trent Water, which installed some 700 prepayment devices? That has already led to about 400 disconnections. As the Water Act 1989 lays down clear guidelines under which water supplies can be disconnected, and as pre-payment devices do not appear to comply with those guidelines, does the Minister believe that water companies are acting lawfully or unlawfully?

Mr. Atkins: I am convinced that the companies are acting lawfully. If that were not the case, it would be a matter for the Director General of Water Services. Metering, which is largely the subject of the hon. Gentleman's question, is still being discussed throughout the length and breadth of the country and there remain differing views.

Points of Order

Mr. Alfred Morris: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, to seek your guidance. I have just been given what appears to be the wholly authentic information that, overnight, what has been described as a stack of amendments will be tabled to the Sale of Goods (Amendment) Bill [Lords] for consideration this Friday. I am informed also that the express purpose of the amendments is to delay still further the Report stage of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, which was subjected to such odious treatment here on 6 May. If that is so, it must be a gross and contemptuous affront to this House.
I have been asked by disabled people to express again their deep anguish and anger at the tactics being used to deny them full citizenship. It must be, at the very least, discourteous to the House to table, overnight, numerous amendments whose purpose, I am told, is to wreck the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, when many right hon. and hon. Members will be leaving the House tonight to attend the funeral on Friday of our late and beloved colleague, John Smith, and will not even have seen the amendments before they leave.

Madam Speaker: I cannot comment on what is at the moment a hypothetical situation. Friday's proceedings will be regulated by the Chair when the time comes.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will have noticed that the Minister of State told my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) that if he persists in asking questions of the nature that he did, funds given to organisations in my hon. Friend's constituency would be at risk. [Interruption.] Oh yes—let there be no doubt about what we heard. The Minister should be asked to withdraw his remark. When something similar happened in 1981, I complained to the Privileges Committee, because Ian MacGregor, then chairman of the British Steel Corporation, was involved. The Privileges Committee held a number of sittings to adjudicate on whether that incident took place, because it was seen as a threat. On that occasion, the threat was that funds would be cut off from my own constituency, for investment in the British Steel Corporation. Will you, Madam Speaker, ask the Minister to withdraw his comments?

Madam Speaker: Order. Nothing that I heard was out of order. However, I compliment the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) because he is dealing with the matter in precisely the right manner.

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order. Madam Speaker. I apologise for my voice, but I am sure that it will soon come back. [Interruption] Well, I would not wish to take a vote on that.
Will you, Madam Speaker, give further consideration to the point that was raised by my right hon. Friend? I wonder whether you understand—I am sure that you do, but I put it in that way—the feeling of anger that exists among disabled people at the way in which the Bill, which is aimed to help them, is being obstructed and frustrated at every turn by the Government. Is there any way that you

can try to ensure that the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill is allowed to be debated again on the Floor of the House, instead of the obstruction that the Government—

Madam Speaker: Order. That is not within my authority, and the hon. Gentleman and the House know that it is not.

Mr. Tony Banks: I wish to raise a point of order of which I have given the Minister concerned prior notice.
In a written reply to me on 25 April, the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) stated that the Government intended to make an order under section 22 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to lift a layer of protection from three species of birds of prey. He said that the Department of the Environment had consulted some 7,000 organisations, including, I might add, the British Association of Tortoise Keepers, and the British Cactus and Succulent Society, though I have never seen a bird of prey seize either a tortoise or a cactus.
However, it appears that the Government sent the consultation paper to the wrong branches of the Government's advisory bodies: the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and English Nature, with the result that the latter's ornithologists were never properly consulted.
In a further reply to me on 3 May, the same Minister stated—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is entering into a debate. What is the point or order for me? What would he like me to do about it?

Mr. Banks: What I should like you to do about it is get some justice back into this place, when a Minister has, perhaps inadvertently, misled the House, because he said that the Association of Chief Police Officers had been in favour of lifting protection from birds of prey. ACPO—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is arguing a case. He must not argue a case across the Floor of the House. What he is saying to me is that he does not believe that the information that was provided to him is correct.

Mr. Banks: No, the organisation concerned has stated publicly that the Minister has misled the House.

Madam Speaker: Order. I am on my feet. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who knows his way around the House and how to put matters right, will use the procedures of the House to do so.

Mr. Banks: That is precisely what I am trying to do, because I want the House to know exactly what has happened—

Madam Speaker: Order. On points of order, it is not a question of the House knowing. Points of order are something that I have to deal with. If the hon. Gentleman wishes the House to know, he must use the Order Paper, through either questions or early-day motions. That is the way to inform the House, and not to use points of order, which is an abuse of our system.

Mr. Banks: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. That is the end of it. I am on my feet. The hon. Gentleman knows how to use the Order Paper to correct something. If he uses that method, the whole House will know what the position is.

Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During Question Time, when I asked a question about water disconnections in England and Wales in relation to the position in Scotland, where disconnections are illegal, the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) said, "I am an Englishman and I can only speak for England." I ask, therefore, whether you will disqualify him and people who think like him from voting tonight on the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill, because he has no right to do so. That Bill is not wanted in Scotland.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has high hopes, which will not be fulfilled.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I seek your help in ensuring that an issue of public debate is reflected in the House? Like everyone else, I heard on all the news bulletins this morning, including interviews with the President of the Board of Trade, about plans to privatise the Post Office. There were also the lead stories in a number of national newspapers. You will know that the duty of the House is to reflect the debate, concerns and interests that are being voiced in the country.
Has there been a request from the Secretary of State to make a statement to the House on that privatisation, not least because if it goes ahead for a sale of £1 billion, which is the figure being quoted, my constituents' property will be sold against their will, without a vote? I want to know when the £1.5 million per constituency, which, pro rata we should receive—

Madam Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is asking me whether a Minister is coming to the House to make a statement on that matter. No Minister has informed me that he or she is seeking to make a statement today.

Mr. John Austin-Walker: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is related to, but separate from, that raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris).
I seek your guidance, Madam Speaker, on a matter concerning the procedures of the House—and, indeed, the responsibility of the House and its Members. I understand that one of your roles is to protect the rights of hon. Members—and, in so doing, to protect the rights of the House and to uphold the House's dignity, and respect for the House and its decisions. I raise this matter not only to seek clarification for myself and colleagues—[Hon. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."]
The matter on which I seek your guidance, Madam Speaker, is the authority of decisions made by the House. The hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) moved a motion that was carried by the House; what I—like members of the public—cannot understand is the fact that the Government have chosen to ignore decisions reached by the House. I believe that, as a result of that, the House has been brought into disrepute. I wonder what remedy there is in the House to ensure that a decision made by the House can be put into effect.

Madam Speaker: There is nothing mandatory about the House's decision. If the hon. Gentleman seeks to amend our procedures in any way, he may wish to make some reference to the Procedure Committee. I think that he already knows that references have been made to the Committee in relation to private Members' Bills.

Mr. John McAllion: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Since entering the House in 1987, I have been repeatedly reminded that this is a unitary Parliament governing a unitary state, and that every citizen in that unitary state is entitled to the same protection under the laws passed by the House. Can you explain how it is possible that disconnecting consumers from the water supply can be illegal in Scotland, while consumers are being disconnected from the supply in England and Wales?

Madam Speaker: The answer is no.

Mr. Jack Straw: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I seek clarification on a matter that arose in your exchanges with my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) and for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours)? You told my hon. Friend the Member for West Derby that the matter of the threat issued by the Minister might be dealt with by way of an Adjournment debate. Do you accept, however, that Opposition Members feel the utmost concern about the fact that a threat to withdraw funding was made? We feel that such a threat must not be a matter only for the individual Member involved; it may be a matter for the whole House. Potentially, the issue of such a threat could be a breach of privilege which ought to be dealt with by means of the proper procedures.

Madam Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman believes that it may be a breach of privilege, he should write to me. I think that I have answered correctly, and that the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) has taken the right action—in proposing to raise the matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.

Sir Michael Neubert: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I revert to the point of order raised by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris)? I do not know the nature, number or sponsors of the amendments tabled to the Bill that is to be considered on Friday. May I point out to you and to the right hon. Gentleman, however, that I served on the Standing Committee? It was unexpectedly controversial—there were a number of Divisions—and hon. Members could well have taken the opportunity to table amendments on Report. Can you confirm, therefore, that that does not necessarily bear the interpretation that the right hon. Gentleman has placed on it?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is quite correct. That was not a point of order but an explanation; all the same, it was helpful. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Roger Berry: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I make a similarly helpful comment in relation to the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill?

Madam Speaker: Order. No. I have taken points of order about that, and I understand the feeling of the House. We must now wait and see what happens on Friday.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 17 JUNE

Members successful in the ballot were:

Mrs. Jacqui Lait
Mr. Martyn Jones
Ms Rachel Squire

BILL PRESENTED

PARDON FOR SOLDIERS OF THE GREAT WAR

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, supported by Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. John Hume, Mr. Ken Maginnis, Rev. Ian Paisley, Mr. Allan Rogers, Mr. Alex Salmond, Sir David Steel, Mr. Dafydd Wigley and Mr. Paul Flynn, presented a Bill to provide for the granting of pardons to soldiers of the British Empire Forces executed during the Great War of 1914 to 1919 following conviction for offences of cowardice, desertion or attempted desertion, disobedience, quitting post, violence, sleeping at post, throwing away arms or striking a superior officer; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 1 July, and to be printed. [Bill 115.]

Education (Admission to Higher Education)

Mr. Jeff Rooker: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to reform the admission procedure to United Kingdom institutions of higher education for all school leavers by holding the relevant public examinations in mid April to mid May; to allow applicants to more than one institution to disclose to each institution the application relevant to that institution alone and to offer to applicants the right to see references given on their behalf to higher education institutions; and for connected purposes.
My Bill proposes a modest change in the dates during which the main public examinations leading to admission to higher education take place in the United Kingdom. This year, exams have already commenced in Scotland; they began on 3 May and will end on 8 June. In England and Wales and Northern Ireland, there are eight examining boards, and the first examinations will take place this Friday, 20 May, and finish on 1 July. Hundreds of thousands of pupils are taking those exams, and I know that we all wish them every success.
The benefits of holding the entrance exams between mid-April and mid-May would be as follows. Such a change would remove pupils' anxiety about the subjective nature of the higher education admissions system. It would also widen access to higher education, improve freedom of information for pupils and enable them to make a more informed choice between areas of higher education study, from a more up-to-date list of courses.
Moreover, the change would enable pupils to seek to gain admission on the basis of work done and results achieved, rather than of inaccurate predictions of performance. Higher education selectors could make full use of the completed record of achievement of the young person concerned, and the need for the tactical process—that is, pupils attempting to second guess what the selectors want, fearing that alternative choices may be held against them—would be eliminated. Above all, my Bill would end what has been described as the bear garden of the clearing process each September. Most of those desirable objectives could be achieved by an admissions system operating after A-level results are known.
The current system and the timetable for admission to higher education were designed specifically to admit 18-year-old school leavers to higher education as it was 30 years ago. At that time, the participation rate of 18-year-olds was 7 per cent; now, I am pleased to say, it is more than 30 per cent., and in Scotland it is more than 36 per cent.
The theory is that effectively all decisions about places in higher education are taken before the examinations. At one time, that may have worked in practice. However, it is unfair and creates much anxiety among pupils and their families.
What is wrong with the present system? I shall touch on four or five of the problems. The Universities and Colleges Admissions Service—UCAS—operates the admissions system on behalf of nearly 200 institutions of higher education, which run more than 20,000 courses. The application cycle takes about a year to complete. That means that a pupil is required to make a choice about higher education almost a year before he or she starts the


course. Why should pupils have to commit themselves so early in their post-16 development? That is much too soon to settle early career patterns.
A pupil may well be undecided a year in advance about the subject area that he or she wants to study, and may have listed completely different subject choices on the application form. Listing different choices can, and does, cause some admissions tutors to take the view that the applicant is uncertain and therefore not committed to that particular application. I do not believe that pupils should have to second guess what admissions tutors want. Research shows that nearly 30 per cent. of final year undergraduates would not choose the same course if they had their time over again.
When choices are made, the course information is out of date. The lead time for the cycle means that the course information material for pupils due to enter higher education in October 1995 had to be at the UCAS printers by January 1994.
The most serious defect of the present admissions system is the use of A-level predictions, made seven or nine months before the examinations, to determine offers of places. Offers are based on teachers' predictions of exam grades, which are made months before the exams take place. Because they are made so far in advance, those predictions are inaccurate. No fewer than 65 per cent. of them are wrong. More than 50 per cent. of teachers' predictions forecast A-level grades too high; a quarter of them predict results two grades or more too high.
How can we continue to run a system with a 65 per cent. failure rate? That is no part of a modern education system. The failure rate applies almost equally to comprehensive schools, independent schools, grammar schools, sixth-form colleges and further education colleges. In FE colleges, A-levels are often completed in one year, which makes the problem far more acute. Lecturers have only a few weeks' experience of their students before they are required to submit A-level grade predictions.
The national closing date for applications is in December, and it is even earlier for Oxbridge. Higher education admissions tutors do not wait until the closing date to begin their assessments, and that can lead to discrimination against pupils who go right up to the closing date before making up their minds.
At present, any changes as a result of Higher Education Funding Council decisions come slap bang in the middle of the applications process, which can cause havoc for pupils forced to make an early choice of courses in advance of examination results. The present timetable also means that full use cannot be made of a pupil's record of achievement when applying to enter higher education.
If we ever move to modular A-levels, the predictions of results so far in advance will become impossible, as the exams to be taken to build up credits for the modular A-level will not be known in time for the present long application cycle. Finding a modern solution is not a simple matter and we need to take account of the fact that we have different school year in England and Scotland, but a United Kingdom-wide admission system to higher education.
I believe that in the short time available to me, I have set out a fair summary of the chief defects of the admissions system. Any objective assessment must conclude that it is

old-fashioned, ill-informed and complex—just the factors needed to limit access. The question is how we can run the admissions system on the basis of results rather than inaccurate predictions. One answer must be to run the examination timetable earlier. Instead of running from late May to late June in England, we should bring the process forward by about five weeks to mid-April to mid-May. That would ensure that results were available in early to mid-July.
There could still be a three-month application period, there would still be time to carry out the interviews, and the choices expressed by pupils would be fewer because they would base them on the results achieved. Preparatory work, with a computer programme for applicants, can be done well before exams are taken. Nothing in such a change need affect those who apply to higher education with qualifications other than A-level. In fact, BTEC assessments will be completed assessments because of the extra time available.
Scotland, which does not have A-levels, already has an earlier period for the examinations—as I said, they have already started—so the change would be absolutely minimal. A not unimportant aspect of such a change is that the exam timetable will avoid the peak of the hay fever season which runs from May to July.
Pupils psych themselves up for exams, so any change must be carefully managed. It must not affect anyone on a current programme of study. My Bill proposes privacy for the applicant to higher education, as each institution would not be allowed to see the applications made by the pupil to other institutions. It also proposes that pupils should have access to references given on their behalf.
To have an admissions system based on equity, we owe our young people flexibility and informed choice, and the modest change in the school year would be justified to bring that about. My proposal does not interfere with quality standards, but is something with which only the House can deal effectively. I have not—and I have never been able to say this before—been able to identify any financial costs relating to the Bill.
I have identified support across the House and in the world of education for the principle of the change, which is all that I am proposing today. The changes would enable us, on behalf of hundreds of thousands of young people, to move from a system based upon secrecy and fiction to one based on open facts.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jeff Rooker, Ms Estelle Morris, Dr. Robert Spink, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Mr. Jon Owen Jones, Mr. John McAllion, Mr. Archy Kirkwood, Mr. Bill Walker and Mr. David Trimble.

EDUCATION (ADMISSION TO HIGHER EDUCATION)

Mr. Jeff Rooker accordingly presented a Bill to reform the admission procedure to United Kingdom institutions of higher education for all school leavers by holding the relevant public examinations in mid April to mid May; to allow applicants to more than one institution to disclose to each institution the application relevant to that institution alone and to offer to applicants the right to see references given on their behalf to higher education institutions; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 15 July, and to be printed. [Bill 116.]

Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Mr. Deputy Speaker said last night that you would consider the position of starred amendments Nos. 302 and 303 which relate to South Queensferry. Do you have a statement to make on the matter?

Madam Speaker: I believe that the hon. Gentleman has some indication of what I am about to tell him. He knows that the amendments were starred, and it was therefore not possible to debate them with the relevant group. The House has already passed that group of amendments, and therefore the hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot allow a Division on amendments that have not been debated.

New Clause 4

NON-DENOMINATIONAL SCHOOLS

'After section 22D of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, there shall be inserted the following section—

"Further provisions relating to non-denominational schools
22E.—(1) An education authority shall submit to the Secretary of State for his consent any proposal of theirs to which this section applies and shall not implement such a proposal without his consent.

(2) A proposal to which this section applies is one—

(a) to—

(i) discontinue the school or a part of it;
(ii) amalgamate the school or a part of it with another school;
(iii) change the site of the school;
(iv) change the arrangements for admission to the school.

(b) in relation to which the Secretary of State, having consulted any education authority affected by it, is satisfied, upon written representations made, that, if implemented, it will have any of the results specified in subsection (3) below.

(3) The results referred to in subsection (2)(b) above are—

(a) a significant deterioration for pupils belonging to the area of the education authority submitting the proposal under subsection (1) above; or
(b) a significant deterioration for pupils belonging to the area of any other education authority; or
(c) where neither paragraph (a) nor paragraph (b) above applies, such a deterioration for pupils as mentioned in the said paragraph (a) and pupils of any other authority as mentioned in the said paragraph (b) as, taken together, amounts to a significant deterioration,

in the provision, or availability of school education in a particular school compared with such provision, or availability in other schools managed by the education authority mentioned in paragraph (a) above or, where paragraph (b) or (c) above applies, any other education authority as mentioned in the said paragraph (b).
(4) Any question which may arise—

(a) whether a proposal is one to which this section applies;
(b) as to the implementation of a proposal to which the Secretary of State has consented under this section shall be determined by the Secretary of State and the education authority shall perform their duties under this Act in accordance with any such determination.".'.—[Mr. McLeish]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.—[Mr. McLeish.]

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Government amendments. Nos 99 to 102.

Mr. Ian Davidson: We have debated on previous occasions the boundaries and the costs of local government reform. When we look at particular

services, it is extremely clear that the reorganisation is boundary-led, rather than service-led. When we look at the education service, we see clearly that the reorganisation will have a considerably adverse affect on the education service.
There will be substantial cuts in education budgets as a result of the reorganisation, which will absorb a substantial amount of money that otherwise would have gone on service provision. Non-statutory services will be placed at risk. Opposition Members argued in Committee that pre-five services and community education should be made statutory provisions to protect them, but the Government refused to accept that.
It is also perfectly clear that many new local authorities will be too small to provide the complete range of education services which the pupils and the adults in the community deserve. They will be forced to have multiple layers of organisation—joint boards, structures for buying-in and combinations of authorities for particular services. It is perfectly clear that many of the existing provisions will be placed at risk as a result of the reorganisation.
One particular ground for concern is the way in which the new local authority boundaries will cut across existing school catchment areas. I recognise that the Government have made a number of concessions as a result of pressure from Opposition Members and from interested bodies in education. They have been prepared to concede that all existing school catchment areas would not be changed by the passing of the legislation itself, but would require subsequent action.
The Government have guaranteed that the existing legal provision for school transport to be provided for distances of two or three miles for youngsters of a relevant age will be maintained, and we welcome that. There will be a substantial deterioration in the existing provision of school transport for the majority of people living in Strathclyde and elsewhere because authorities—Strathclyde in particular—make a provision of school transport beyond the legal minimum. It is highly unlikely that those authorities will be able to do so when their budgets are under the severe pressure that reorganisation will place on them.
The loss of free transport facilities for a substantial number of youngsters will undoubtedly have a consequential impact on school rolls in areas that are affected by the boundaries of local authorities cutting across school catchment areas. We must take into account the position in which those schools and authorities will find themselves.
Without doubt, the new local authorities will find themselves under tremendous financial pressure. There will have to be cuts in education services, and schools will be closed for financial reasons. It is a question then of how many schools and which boundaries are affected.
The Government have conceded that Roman Catholic schools have special protection, as they are able to take cases to which the Church and parents object to the Secretary of State for clarification. It will be for him to identify whether the schools and parents involved are experiencing significant deterioration, compared with other schools run by that authority.
Unfortunately, as the legislation stands, no similar provision is being made for non-denominational schools. The purpose of new clause 4 is to place an equivalent responsibility on the Government to ensure that there is


equity between the sectors and to ensure that non-denominational schools, and particular individual non-denominational schools, are not dealt with adversely by the local authority.
It is particularly important that parents who do not have a say through elected representatives have the opportunity to refer the matter to the Secretary of State. If one authority decides to close a school in its area, the parents of the children who attend that school and who reside in another local authority will have no democratic mechanism by which to express their view. The Government have reasonably bowed to pressure from Labour Members and the Catholic Church on the issue of denominational schools. They have recognised that something has to be done and they have conceded that the matter can be referred to the Secretary of State.
I envisage that a similar position will apply in some circumstances to non-denominational schools that are under severe financial pressure. It is reasonable, therefore, that the Government should also take into account those equivalent circumstances.
I have reservations about asking the House to pass a new clause which will give the Secretary of State more powers because, throughout the passage of the Bill, he has taken unto himself more powers, which he should not necessarily have. But that should not blind us to the fact that there are circumstances in which it is appropriate for matters to be referred to the Secretary of State and this is one of them. As the Church of Scotland and the Roman Catholic Church have both said that they want equivalent treatment of non-denominational and Catholic schools, I hope that the Minister will see fit to accept the new clause.

4 pm

Mr. Dennis Canavan: I raised on Second Reading the problem to which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson) referred. It is one of the many problems that arise from this divisive Bill. Many children and many schools will face difficulties because the proposed new local education authority boundaries cut across the boundaries of many school catchment areas throughout Scotland.
As the Minister knows, I instanced the case of St. Modan's high school, which, although not in my constituency, serves the children of many of my constituents from Denny, Dennyloanhead, Dunipace and Banknock. The Minister may recall that I said to him that if the catchment area of a particular school were confined to the local education authority area in which that school was located, the very viability of many schools would be threatened. Certainly, the viability of maintaining the number of children in some upper school courses would be threatened. In some extreme cases, the very existence of schools could be threatened.
In a sense, the situation at St. Modan's high school in Stirling has been exacerbated by the Government's latest amendment. Under the original proposals, St. Modan's would have taken in children from two local education authority areas. Now, if Clackmannan is to be a local education authority in its own right, however, St. Modan's will take in children from three local education authority areas. As the Minister knows, there was initially a storm of protest from the rector of the school, the parent-teacher association and many individual parents. They were joined by parents of children in many other schools throughout

Scotland, particularly but, I emphasise, not exclusively, parents who chose to send their children to Catholic schools. Some non-denominational schools were also affected because their catchment areas would straddle the new local education authority boundaries.
The Minister will recall that lobby groups came down to Westminster and that parents, schools, the Scottish Catholic hierarchy and Scottish Catholic Education Commission sent a flood of correspondence to the Scottish Office about the matter. There was a general welcome, and relief, that there was at least some response from the Government in Committee, and the Bill has been amended to meet some of the concerns that were expressed by parents.
However, people are not exactly dancing in the streets about the amendments that were passed in Committee. There is certainly no complacency. We will still have to be vigilant to see how the arrangements work in practice with regard to statutory consultation between authorities, referral to the Secretary of State, the provision of school transport, and so on. There is certainly a general welcome for the Government's response in Committee, but it remains to be seen how the arrangements will work in practice.
The Catholic Church representatives to whom I spoke were not concerned simply about children whose parents choose to send them to Catholic schools. Obviously, they have had discussions on the matter with their counterparts in the Church of Scotland, the Scottish Episcopalian Church and churches of other denominations.
Certainly, the Catholic Church spokespersons who communicated with me were at pains to point out that they were not demanding any special privileges; they simply wanted statutory protection of the rights that they already have. They do not want special privileges to be given to Catholic schools or any other denominational schools in Scotland. They believe that there should be statutory protection for the rights of all children and parents, regardless of the school to which parents choose to send their children in Scotland. New clause 4 seems to be an attempt to extend that protection of rights to parents who choose to send their children to non-denominational schools, as well as to those whose children go to denominational schools.
I should like some specific answers from the Minister to some questions. How many schools are there in Scotland whose catchment areas will straddle the new local education authority boundaries? How many of them are denominational schools? What denominations are they? How many of them are non-denominational? How many are high schools or secondary schools, how many are primary schools and how many are special schools?
I conclude by referring to special education and the needs of children who attend special schools. The school that I mentioned earlier—St. Modan's high school—is unique among Central region secondary schools with regard to this boundary problem. But within Central region, there are cases of children with special educational needs who travel from one part of the region to another. If the Government have their way on the carve-up of the Central region, it may well mean that children with special educational needs will have to be bussed from one local education authority area to another.
What can the Minister tell us about the safeguards with regard to the number of schools in Scotland that will be affected and the number of pupils who will be affected?


What will be the practical implications of those safeguards which, I hope, will be provided in the Bill? I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on those matters.

Mr. Tony Worthington: The Bill is yet another example of the Government's failure to think about local authorities and the needs of the people of Scotland. It was introduced for one particular reason, but the people of Scotland must now face its consequences.
Because of the Government's proposals on education, some catchment areas will be irrelevant or a nuisance to the new local authorities, while others will be created. As my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) said, currently, there are no catchment areas for those receiving special education, but, by heck, there will be in the future. Those children who crop up in penny packets with their own particular special needs will not be catered for by the small local authorities of the future.
The present Strathclyde authority provides Middlefield school for the education of aphasic children. I cannot imagine that the new authorities of Dumbarton or Clydebank will be that concerned about aphasic children, because they may not come across such a child within 10 years. It is essential, however, that someone accepts responsibility for them.
From the Minister's letters to me it is extraordinary to note his touching faith in co-operation and his urge to offer goodness and light to people. Despite that, we have the most conflict-ridden Government I have ever known, who do not believe in any kind co-operation. It will, therefore, be difficult for people to heed the Government's call to co-operate.
The new clause is important because, although the consequences of the new boundaries may cause problems for primary schools, those created for secondary education will be enormous. My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West has already asked how many schools will be affected by the new boundaries.
In my constituency, I can think of two particular problems that will arise. Some time ago, secondary schools in Drumchapel had to shut down because of overcapacity. The loss of those schools was a painful process for the citizens of Drumchapel. Schools in Clydebank were asked to take the Catholic children of Drumchapel. St. Columba's and St. Andrew's schools in my constituency went through careful preparations to ensure that the difficult integration—in community terms—of the Drumchapel children with those of Clydebank went ahead successfully. That integration has worked extremely well.
What will happen in the future as a result of the boundary proposals? Will the children within the boundaries of the City of Glasgow council be told that will be expected to go to a Glasgow school and be taken away from the Clydebank school into which they had been integrated? I am sure that the Minister has not even thought of that. Will a future Glasgow corporation or council look happily on the fact that, although it has space in its schools, it must pay Clydebank or Dumbarton authority for the education of the children in those authorities' schools? I cannot see such an arrangement lasting for long.
The problems that I have described affect just one constituency on the boundary of the Glasgow, but I am sure that they are replicated everywhere. In the Milngavie end

of my constituency, Catholic children from St. Joseph's currently go on to John Paul academy in Glasgow. In future, those children will be part of another authority, so will they be expected to go to Kirkintilloch for their education? In future, a cash transaction will take place—all because a Government wanted to gerrymander boundaries. That is all. That is why the disruption will occur.
I have regrets about supporting a further centralisation of power to the Secretary of State. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson) intimated, I think that all Opposition Members regret that. Nevertheless, there is an anomaly.
The Government have responded to the pressure of the Catholic Church by introducing special measures to provide an extra assurance for Catholic children in Scotland. When the first school closure takes place, that will obviously cause sectarian tension. People will ask why Catholic children in Catholic schools have a built-in extra safeguard when there is no safeguard for nondenominational children.
Therefore, overcoming my squeamishness about further centralisation of power, I support the new clause.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I shall briefly comment on the amendment, which I and my colleagues obviously support. It is especially appropriate that I follow the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), because he and I both taught at St. Modan's. In that previous existence, he was my boss at one stage. I eventually had responsibility in that school for children with special needs and I taught as a non-Roman Catholic in a Catholic school. I think that we wish to retain in our educational system the type of friendship and organisation that existed there.
I represent a constituency which is far removed from the central belt and the issue of non-denominational schools does not arise to the same extent. In my district, although there are primary schools that represent the Roman Catholic community, there is no Roman Catholic secondary school and the children move on directly to schools that do not have that religious attitude. That works extremely well. However, I recognise the importance that the Roman Catholic Church attaches to the continuation of its schools and of their ethos.
As someone who is trained in looking after the special needs of youngsters, I hope that the Government recognise the anxieties that are expressed by many people who believe that children's special needs should be met in their districts and communities. The problems that are created for the families of such children are exacerbated if they have to move far from their original communities.
Therefore, I hope that the Minister—I believe that he shares our worries—will ensure that the Bill makes it clear that children's special needs will be recognised in all areas of Scotland, thereby preventing the problem of children being sent vast distances to meet their educational needs.

Mr. John McAllion: As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson) said, it is important to place the problem of the new local government boundaries cutting across the catchment areas of exiting schools against the background of the financial pressures from the Government under which the new single-tier authorities will find themselves—there is no doubt anywhere in Scotland about that.
The Minister in the Scottish Office with responsibility for education and housing sent me a copy of the letter that he sent to Archbishop O'Brien on 4 February, in which he said:
the existing arrangements for distributing resources between authorities should continue to apply after
local government
re-organisation, although the distribution will of course be driven by assessments of need in each area derived by The Scottish Office".
Everyone knows that the Scottish Office assessment of the need for secondary school places in different parts of Scotland is that there is an excess of places in secondary schools throughout Scotland and that it expects the move to single-tier authorities to result in a decrease in secondary school places and, thus, school closures throughout Scotland. That is no secret.
Dundee will be left with 12 secondary schools within the city boundaries, to be supported by a population of just 150,000. The Government obviously expect the new authority in Dundee, whoever happens to control it, to make savings by closing a number of places currently available to kids in Dundee. Of those 12 secondary schools, at one end of the spectrum we have the Harris academy, the Morgan academy and Menzieshill high school, which have a high number of pupils. At the other end of the spectrum, we have schools such as Linlathen and Rockwell, with only 352 and 533 pupils respectively. Pressure will be placed on the new authority to close schools that are sometimes two thirds empty. In those circumstances, the authority will look for any way in which to make savings.
In Committee, the Minister said that funding for individual pupils will follow those pupils wherever they happen to go. If, in addition to the pressure already on the new authority to close schools in Dundee, the authority is then expected to save the money that would have funded pupils attending schools in its area and to fund pupils who cross the boundary to attend schools in a neighbouring area, it may find the position intolerable.
The Minister knows that I am referring to Monifieth academy, one of whose main feeder primary schools will remain in the Dundee area while Monifieth academy will be in the Angus area. Will the new education authority in Dundee council be obliged to allow pupils who currently attend Barnhill primary school in Dundee to cross the boundary into Angus and be educated at Monifieth academy, or could it say that it is not prepared to fund pupils to attend a school in another area? Could it simply redraw the catchment area for the local Grove academy in Dundee and insist that children who have attended Barnhill primary school must attend Grove rather than Monifieth academy? That is a critical consideration.
What obligations will be placed on the council in those circumstances? Could the council simply say, "Kids from Dundee can no longer attend the school in Angus. We are not prepared to fund it. We shall keep all the resources available to us within the Dundee boundaries and insist that Dundee children attend Dundee secondary schools"? If the council does not have the power to do that, in addition to closing its own schools, it will have to fund some of the children to attend schools across the boundary in another authority area. if the council can insist that children stay within Dundee, the future of Monifieth academy will not be good because it will lose a substantial number of its present school population.
I want the Minister to be absolutely clear about the position between the two authorities, Angus and Dundee, and about attendance at the school in Angus by pupils currently living in Dundee, whose catchment areas may be redesignated to focus on schools in the Dundee area.

Mr. Michael Connarty: I hope to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to discuss special education. There is a much larger debate to be had on that subject, given the Government's failure to respond to the concerns of Enable and other organisations that deal with those with special educational needs, which were raised in Committee.
People in central Scotland face considerable problems now that the Government have been silly enough to proceed with the three council solution, with Stirling, Clackmannan and Falkirk as separate districts. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), I have spoken to the headmasters of St. Modan's school in Stirling, Mr. John Oates, and of St. Mungo's academy in Falkirk, Mr. Hugh Lynch. The academy is in my constituency. The result of the Government's proposal is that 60 per cent. of pupils who now attend St. Modan's will not live within the catchment area of the new local authority, which will be a major problem.
The people of Falkirk district, who are keen to have their own unitary authority to look after their citizens, will be asked to levy taxation locally to maintain the infrastructure of a school in a neighbouring local authority. Given the substantial cost of the reorganisation, they will doubtless be pressed to find the resources to look after the infrastructure of their own schools. Clearly, that will not work, cannot be sustained in the long term and cannot be justified. It is the disease within the Bill, which is driven by boundary considerations and the Government's malice. Eventually, it will weaken the educational provision within St. Modan's, cause cancerous growths in the education system within Falkirk district and kill the educational provision that the people deserve. The Government should have thought of that when they introduced the Bill. They are out to wreck education—maybe unknowingly. As I said in Committee,
Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.
In the case of this Minister, that may be true.

Dr. John Reid: I am not an expert on the Bill. Indeed, in the best traditions of Parliament, it was brought to my attention by constituents. Ministers and the Conservative party in Scotland grossly underestimate the feeling among ordinary men and women about the provisions in this part of the Bill.
I shall first refer to the main problem—the slicing in half of catchment areas. The two most important educational institutions in Scotland—the secondary schools and the primary schools—were physically, geographically and demographically put in place over a period of 25 years, on the basis of existing catchment areas. They were built and structured to service those catchment areas, which are suddenly being slashed, sliced or cut away. I am glad that the Government made their concession, particularly with regard to Roman Catholic schools, but stopping at half the truth is often like telling a whole lie. Half measures are often worse than nothing at all.
I fear that, by trying to go halfway towards meeting the problem of catchment areas and the concern of parents —particularly because of circumstances among Roman


Catholics—the Government have left to simmer a potential cause of resentment among people whose children go to non-denominational schools. There will come a time when, because of a school closure, because a particular school is full or because of a lack of parental choice, people who want their sons and daughters to go to a nondenominational school will be filled with resentment. They will blame the Government and ask the simple question, "Why have safeguards given to one section of the community not been delivered to the rest?"
Concern about the issue was expressed to me in my constituency on a bright Friday night when most reasonable people would have wanted to do something other than attend a meeting in a public hall and listen to their Member of Parliament. On that occasion, more than 400 parents turned up because they were concerned that, after decades, their children would no longer be able to go to Uddingston grammar school. The three feeder schools that have traditionally looked to that grammar school, which is only three miles away, will find themselves, as a result of the Government's proposals, split from it. The children will have to go to another school.
Although that school is only slightly further away, traditionally, those parents would want their children to go to it. When the practical effects of the Bill are felt, the parents of the children going to those three nondenominational schools and wishing to go to Uddingston grammar will demand to know why they do not enjoy the concessions that were given to other parents.
Two brief points arise from that situation. The parents will not only resent the move in the long term but take action now to redirect their children from one feeder primary to another. It is well known that Bellshill academy, which is one of the alternatives to Uddingston grammar, will not be able to cope with the intake from all three primary schools. In other words, the children from one or two of them will be able, even after the introduction of the new catchment areas, to go to the traditional school.
I predict that, over the next year or so, parents will move their children from the primary school that they anticipate will feed Bellshill to one that they anticipate will continue to feed Uddingston grammar. As a result, one of the primary schools will appear on the records as having children disappearing from its roll like snow off a dike. The head teacher will be blameless, and the school will be blameless. I know that it is a marvellous school, but the head teacher and the school's board will find that, because of the insecurity created by the changes and because they are anticipating how to get round them, people will move their children away.
I ask the Minister even at this late stage to do what we have been asking him to do all along—preserve the catchment areas that already exist for all schools and all parents. If he does not, the freedom of choice that he likes to speak about will be theoretical, not practical. He knows that, although a theoretical freedom will obtain, the practical compulsion of a lack of finance for local authorities will mean that they fill first their own schools, not the schools that have traditionally been in their catchment areas, which will be separated from them by the new boundaries.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I am glad to respond to the debate, and especially to the important points about special educational needs. I am glad to confirm that the Secretary of State has the powers to ensure that the necessary duties in this connection are carried out by education authorities. Those duties are set out in section 1 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, which requires every education authority to ensure that there is made for its area adequate and efficient provision of school education and further education. That obviously covers all special educational needs.
A failure to fulfil that duty could bring about complaints under section 70 of the 1980 Act: the default provisions. They provide a mechanism by which the Secretary of State can, by order, require an authority to discharge the necessary duty. Accordingly, section 70 provides an opportunity, in extremis, for the Secretary of State to intervene where and when he considers that an authority has failed to discharge the necessary duty under the Act.

Mrs. Ewing: Is the Minister satisfied that records of needs are being dealt with adequately and within the necessary time in the education system?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Lady asks a relevant question. Each new education authority, under the 1980 Act, will have responsibility for identifying and assessing children who require records of needs and for providing for their special educational needs as identified and recorded. I can confirm that no record of needs will be affected by the reform and the terms and obligations that the Act places on education authorities will continue in full force.
Amendments Nos. 99 to 102 relate to clause 140. As we have said, it is not the intention of the Scottish Office to diminish or change the statutory provisions governing Catholic education in Scotland. The purpose of clause 140, which was introduced in Committee, is to clarify the arrangements under which certain changes proposed by an authority which would affect denominational schools would have to be referred to the Secretary of State for his consent. It was intended to ensure that the interests of all the children affected by a relevant proposal were taken into account.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson) referred to equity. With that thought in mind when reflecting on the terms of clause 140, we came to the view that changes were necessary to the original wording. The intention was to move from a comparison between the denominational and non-denominational schools provided by a given authority to a comparison between the denominational and non-denominational education available for pupils belonging to a given authority's area, regardless of which authority managed the schools.
In layman's language, that means that if a school's catchment area is proposed for a change, it can be compared with all available schools nearby, thus widening the interpretation. I believe that that meets the point made in this regard in Committee.
The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) asked a question to which I should like to reply next. Where there are proposals for catchment areas, those catchment areas will remain in place unless and until authorities seek to change them. Before that can happen,


certain statutory procedures have to be gone through, including extensive consultation with parents and others. In certain cases, the consent of the Secretary of State for Scotland must be obtained. Incidentally, the 80 per cent. rule means that any school that is more than 80 per cent. full will automatically be referred.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr.McAllion) asked about the parents' choice provisions. Where a school has room to take the pupils, under the parents' choice legislation, it is obliged to do so. In certain cases, where a school is 15 per cent. full or mostly empty, there may be a case for rationalisation. That will be the same in future as it has been in the past, but full consultation would have to take place.
The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) asked for the numbers of schools. The Department does not at present have details on record of all school catchment areas or similar arrangements with particular secondary schools. Central Government involvement in the maps and schemes of educational provision ended 15 years ago; those are now the responsibility of local authorities. However, where the Department requires details—for example where particular issues are raised with it, or for school inspection purposes—it can establish them with the help of the education authorities.

Mr. Canavan: That is a disgraceful admission by the Minister. He has known of the existence of the problem for six months or more. Enormous pressure has been put on the Government through letter writing, parliamentary representations, lobbies of Parliament and meetings with the Minister and he is telling us now that not only is the solution very conditional, but he does not even know the magnitude of the problem. Only the Government have the responsibility for the problem and the resources to quantify it by contacting all the local education authorities in Scotland. The Minister is now admitting that he has not even bothered do his homework before replying to the House. It is a disgrace.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It is not as simple as the hon. Gentleman suggests. I explained fully in Standing Committee that the reason for it was the non-co-operation of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. If the hon. Gentleman wants that information provided more readily, he should encourage local authorities to co-operate with the provision of information. Of course, if necessary, the Scottish Office will do it, but it is better that a job should be done by the local authorities as arranged under the 1980 Act, and that the information should be forthcoming. If the hon. Gentleman has a particular request in relation to a particular school, that matter can be followed up.

Mr. Canavan: Will the Minister give way?

Lord James Douglas Hamilton: No. I have answered the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Canavan: It is on the same point.

Lord James Douglas Hamilton: I have answered the hon. Gentleman. He may not be satisfied with the answer, but that is the answer.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order.

Mr. Canavan: If I tabled a parliamentary question, would the Minister reply to it?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. When the Chair requests order, both sides should resume their seats.

Lord James Douglas Hamilton: I shall provide the information within my possession, but I have answered the hon. Gentleman. If I have to give a rough and ready estimate without confirmation, I shall say that I believe that the number will be under 100. Some have suggested that it will be 600, but I do not believe that it will anything like as large as that. That is a rough and ready estimate; if the hon. Gentleman's tables a question I shall give as much information as I have available.
My first concern is that new clause 4 would result in almost any proposed change to a catchment area or almost any proposal by an authority to rationalise or reorganise its position having to be referred to the Secretary of State to assess whether his consent is necessary. Apparently, under the new clause as drafted, anyone at all can trigger that process by making representation. I find it hard to believe that Opposition Members really intend that local authorities should be so constrained. The whole thrust of the Bill is to give authorities greater flexibility, as I have made clear on a number of occasions. Indeed, in certain cases they may have to rationalise.
My second point relates to the fact that Opposition Members may claim that new clause 4 is intended to give some non-denominational schools more protection; but that would be to misunderstand the current position. I repeat that nothing in the Bill introduces new safeguards for denominational education.
Clauses 140 and 141 clarify the existing position. Clause 140 does not introduce a new safeguard. The intention behind it is to make certain that the interests of all the children affected by any relevant proposal will be taken into account in relation to denominational education. Clause 141 removes any doubt about whether an education authority would still have a duty under section 51 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980. Non-denominational schools will be no worse off as a result of the boundary changes. The safeguards that exist at present will continue to apply—I have already mentioned the 80 per cent. rule.
Thirdly, because the new clause would apply to all schools—both denominational and non-denominational—it would directly cut across existing safeguards for denominational schools. So the impact of new clause 4 would be to limit section 22D only to a proposal to change a denominational school into a non-denominational school. It would remove the right of the denominational body to be consulted about a proposed change in, for example, the catchment area of a denominational school.
The new clause takes no account of the arrangements to be made for the religious instruction of pupils in denominational schools which are currently set out in section 22D. It would require the consent of the Secretary of State, even if the denominational body agreed to the proposal. New clause 4 would be a substantial weakening of the existing safeguards and, for that reason, I cannot support it.

Mr. George Robertson: The Minister brings to the Dispatch Box the old skill that I remember from my trade union official days: if one cannot convince, then confuse. He deploys that tactic with great skill, and has brought it to the debate today. However, he is unique


in that he usually manages to confuse himself. His distance from officials today has meant that there has not been a constant stream of answers to questions.
The Minister said that clause 140 offers no new protection to denominational schools, but the reality is that it widens protection for denominational schools where their catchment areas are affected by the boundaries that have been created through the unnecessary reorganisation. That concession was obtained as a result of a massive public campaign by the churches in Scotland, especially the Roman Catholic Church.
I do not for a minute take away from the Roman Catholic Church's success in bringing its problems to the notice of hon. Members, but it was only one message that the Government received. In making the concession that is enshrined in clause 180, the Government have ignored the fact that all the churches in Scotland—the Roman Catholic Church, the Church of Scotland and the rest—gave the Government a united message about the danger to education as a whole posed by the reorganisation.
The Churches warned us about what would happen. They warned us about the fragmentation of existing local authorities in Scotland, and they were right to do so. They warned that there were implications for the standards of education in Scotland and that funding difficulties would follow, as day follows night, the fragmentation of local authorities that would occur as a result of the reorganisation. They warned us that there would be an inevitable reduction in the breadth and scale of education provision for people in Scotland as a result of creating small and, in many cases, non-viable local authorities. They said that those who would suffer most as a consequence were those who presently rely on the provision of special needs education across Scotland.
New clause 4 has nothing to do with sectarianism or creating difficulties for non-denominational or denominational schools. It is about equity; it is about providing protection for non-denominational schools, which will find their catchment areas sliced up arbitrarily by the reorganisation, in the same way as protection has been found for the denominational schools that brought their case to Parliament.
Rather than being enhanced by the reorganisation, education in Scotland will be endangered. The new clause is one way of drawing that fact to the attention of the Scottish people. Now is not the time to divide the House about the issue or the new clause, but the issue will remain because the concerns about Scottish education are alive and real. They are shared by the churches and the wider Scottish population. Nothing that the Minister says either to convince or to confuse will reassure people who have a genuine and well-justified fear that education is in danger.

Mr. Henry McLeish: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 5

JOINT CHILDREN'S PANELS

'123.-In Schedule 3 to the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (Children's Panels), after paragraph 1 there shall be inserted—

"1A-(1) Two or more local authorities may make arrangements to form a joint Children's Panel for their areas.

(2) A joint Children's Panel shall not be formed in pursuance of the arrangements made under sub-paragraph (1) above unless the authorities have obtained the consent in writing of the Secretary of State.
(3) The Secretary of State may give a direction to two or more local authorities requiring them to form a joint Children's Panel; and the local authorities shall comply with any such direction.
(4) The provisions of this Act shall apply, subject to any necessary modification, to a joint Children's Panel as they apply to a Children's Panel formed under paragraph 1 of this Schedule.".'.—[Mr. McLeish.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Sam Galbraith: rose—

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: rose

Mr. John Home Robertson: She is in charge.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that that was a very helpful remark from the hon. Gentleman.

Mrs. Fyfe: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss the following: New clause 6—Reporters' Service—

'.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section the functions of existing local authorities immediately before 1st April 1996 to provide suitable accommodation and facilities for children's hearings under section 34 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 and to appoint a reporter under section 36 of the said Act shall be carried out on and after that date by the councils established in terms of Part 1 of this Act.
(2) If it appears to the Secretary of State that the functions referred to in subsection (1) of this section of two or more authorities should be discharged jointly by those authorities, he may by order establish a joint board in accordance with this section.
(3) The provisions of subsections (2) and (3) of section 62A of the 1973 Act shall apply to a joint board established under this section as they apply to a joint board established under this section with the substitution of a reference to subsection (2) of this section for the reference to subsection (1) of that section.
(4) Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding subsection, the membership of the joint boards established under this section shall consist wholly of councillors elected to the authorities established under Part 1 of this Act within the areas of the joint boards.'.

New clause 7—Children's Panel Training—
'124.-In Schedule 3 to the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (Children's Panels), in paragraph 7, after "Each local authority", for "may" there shall be substituted "shall"; and after "panel members" there shall be inserted "in accordance with such requirements as the Secretary of State may by order establish.".'.
New clause 8—Reporter's Service Charter—
'122.-In section 36 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (the Reporter), after subsection (3) there shall be inserted—
(4) Each Reporter will produce a Charter relating to such issues as the Secretary of State may by order define, including statements of the standards of service and hearings accommodation which are to be provided, and implementing an effective complaints procedure to ensure these standards are met.".'
Government amendments Nos. 131 to 134 and 153.

Mrs. Fyfe: In supporting new clause 5, I begin by saying that in part III we have yet another example of the Government heeding no one and listening to nobody. The Government's proposals are opposed by the regional children's panels and the children's panel advisory group —there cannot be more authoritative bodies than those. They have pointed out that the proposals will lead to a loss


of accountability, the use of non-local reporters, and the consequent loss of local knowledge which has been rightly valued ever since the Social Work (Scotland) Act came into force in 1968.
Families will have to travel to more remote centres for hearings. Reporters will have less influence over resources than they have had previously, yet if the same standards are to be maintained the service will inevitably cost more. In The Herald of today Mr. Alan Finlayson, no less, asked two key questions: how do we ensure that reporters remain attached to local communities; and how will reporters continue to play an effective role with regard to the allocation of resources? Those questions remain unanswered.
Yesterday, the Secretary of State denied that this is a centralising Government and said that plans for water were an exception to the general principle. But here we have another piece of centralisation in the same Bill. He must have forgotten about it—although that is rather strange because it is part III of his own Bill, not some minor detail hidden in a sub-paragraph.
Let us remember the alleged reasons behind part III of the Bill. This reminds me of one of the lighter moments that I witnessed when I sat in on the deliberations of the Standing Committee. The Minister said that it was all to do with consistency of professional practice and the promotion of staff training and development. He said that the principal reporter would provide a clear focus of leadership and management. But the Minister did not even know what qualifications would be required of the first person to be appointed to that post by the Secretary of State.
One might think that, if these were the Government's intentions, they had plenty of time to consider how to implement them. The Bill was presented to Parliament last year. Under pressure from my hon. Friends and after a lot of paper passing, the Minister finally revealed that the principal reporter's qualifications would include
a knowledge of child-care law and child development
and specific details would be worked out after consultation. The first point is hardly a startling revelation and the second betrays how little thought has gone into a major part of this Bill.
It is clear that the only reason for breaking up the reporter system and the fragmentation of the children's panels is that the current well-tried, highly regarded arrangements have to be broken up as a consequence of the Local Government Bill becoming an Act. If the Government were not fixated on breaking up local authorities, there would be no such plans.
It is worth reminding the House that in the summer of 1993, the Government published a White Paper, "Scotland's Children", and stated that they regarded its implementation as a priority. In the autumn of 1993, not a word about it was uttered in the Queen's Speech—not a word about a Bill that we all want. Instead, we received a forewarning of this completely unwanted legislation, which has soaked up 40 sittings in Committee and hours and hours more in the Chamber and in the other place. Meanwhile, the needs of children in Scotland continue to be neglected.
The Government put their need to gerrymander local government before the needs of children in trouble. That calculated act of neglect will be neither forgiven nor forgotten. With only six months until the next Queen's Speech, the possibility of a comprehensive Bill introducing

for Scotland legislation such as that which England and Wales have enjoyed for five years will be included. There can be no excuse for further delay—otherwise the Government's mention of priority loses all meaning. We demand no further delay in presenting a children's Bill for Scotland. Let us get that long-awaited legislation on the statute book.
If the Government say that they mean to introduce such a Bill this autumn, why press ahead with part III of this Bill, which cannot come into force until 1996—long after we could be finished with a children's Bill that could speed through the House? Much of its likely content is not in dispute between parties, and we agree on much in the White Paper.
I remind the House why legislation for children is needed. If this mother of Parliaments were a real mother, the neighbours would all be talking about her. Parliament consistently neglects the needs of children. There have been a number of major inquiries resulting in massive tomes of crucial recommendations, Law Commission reports, and recommendations from the United Nations and European Union—but Parliament always finds more important things to talk about.
Ministers display a lack of interest in our nation's children, which makes me wonder whether they realise that children are part of the human race. In Scotland alone in 1992, 40 children lost their lives in road accidents, 857 suffered serious accidents, and there were more than 4,000 casualties. What a carnage. What a sad and sickening waste of young lives. When the Minister, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), was asked the total cost to the NHS and ambulance services that year of accidents involving children, he replied that such information was not available.
That is not the only thing that the Minister does not know. What percentage of children with severe disabilities have access to respite care? He does not know. What is the Minister's estimate of the number of children in Scotland who go hungry every day? He does not have one. What is his estimate of the number of 17 to 20–year-old offenders who were in care before the age of 16? What is his estimate of the number of children with mental health problems? How many children are the principal carers of sick or disabled parents or close relatives? To all those questions, the hon. Member for Eastwood replied, "This information is not held centrally."
The Minister can tell us how many girls in Scotland are named Mary and how many boys are named Jack. Is not it time that the Minister stopped wasting the time of civil servants discovering the most popular boys' and girls' names, if civil servants cannot devote some of their time to researching the scale of sheer misery that is needlessly endured by too many of our nation's children?
In Inverness, the Prime Minister said:
We must focus attention once more on the essential concerns of the people we represent.
This Parliament could do nothing more essential than focus on the needs of our young. We will not vote on the new clause because it is our firm belief that the Government themselves must deal with matters with proper seriousness, in a comprehensive Bill presented without delay. Part III of the Bill should be withdrawn.
Full discussion about the reporter service and children's panels should take place where it belongs—in debate on a


comprehensive children's Bill for children in difficulties, not on a Bill that was created by and for a Government in difficulties.

Mr. Galbraith: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for any confusion that I may have caused at the start of the debate.
I support the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) in respect of the new clause and children's panels. It is inappropriate to have introduced that provision while we still await a proper children's Bill. Only in the context of such a Bill can we consider the future and structure of children's panels.
In Committee, the Minister made great play of the reasons for centralising children's panels, in respect of general and national standards and training. The Secretary of State gave the real reason away in the White Paper, "Scotland's Children". Paragraph 6.13 states:
Reporters. The plans for local government reorganisation will create an increased number of local authorities. If the reporter service remained a local authority service, this would lead to a significant increase in the number of reporter's departments, including the number of small departments.
That is the reason for creating a central reporter. The Government are damned by their own Bill.
Any reasonable person might say that as local government reorganisation will upset children's panels, there should be no reorganisation. Instead, the Government are going ahead with reorganising children's panels on the basis not of what is good for the care of children but of what is good for the Conservative party. That is at the heart of the problem. It will do the children of this country no good to suffer a deterioration in services to them for the benefit of Government gerrymandering.
I argue for the retention of children's services at local level not just because I am generally opposed to centralisation but because existing children's legislation has a severe legal deficit. Large parts of it infringe justice, not only for children and parents but others. That deficit can partly be redressed because the existing system of local representatives and regional councils are under the direct authority of those involved and are answerable to local people. Once the service in centralised, it will be more difficult to redress the legal and justice deficit.
The Government acknowledge that problem. Paragraph 5.11 of the White Paper deals with child protection orders and paragraph 5.16 states that
justice is the right of children and parents to appeal in a court with legal representation …Justice is reinforced by the European Convention of Human Rights, which emphasises rights through legal process. It is clearly necessary to ensure that any changes in legislation would satisfy the standards of both Conventions.
The Government recognise that justice deficit in respect of not only children but their parents. I remind the Minister that others are involved. Grandparents are one example. They have no legal redress once accusations are made against them.
Children's cases are difficult. The burden of proof is not beyond reasonable doubt, for the sheriff. As the law stands, the child's welfare is paramount—but we must not allow that to blackmail us into removing justice. Although the current system does not redress the imbalance of justice, it goes some way to allowing people to speak up on behalf of others.
Decisions of fact are made by the sheriff. In that case, parents have a right of appeal, but others who are the

subject of allegations have no rights. The case may go to the reporter. He can make exclusion and other orders against individuals against whom allegations have been made, but those individuals have no rights to present their case to the children's panel. In other words, accusations and allegations can be made, and there is no redress whatever under any part of the legislation. That cannot be an acceptable position within our current legal constraints, and it definitely is an infringement of the European convention on human rights. The Government are aware of that, but until they address it and introduce legislation to deal with it, the only means through which those involved have any source of redress is by the children's panels being local, with their local representatives being able to get involved and to speak to the children's panel and the social work department. Let us get some equity in the Bill.
5 pm
There are suggestions in the White Paper on how that might be dealt with, in the section that deals with the exclusion of abusers. The orders will have to be made by a sheriff, not just the children's panel. If that is the case, I hope that those involved, if they are not parents, could have some access at that stage. It is premature of the Government to go ahead at this stage and form a national system with a chief reporter—a system that will withdraw the last vestiges of justice for many. The children have rights of justice, as does everyone else involved. Until the Government address that, and given the relationship of the Bill to the White Paper, they should withdraw their amendments and plans to introduce a centralised children's reporter system.

Mr. Dalyell: May I, through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, say a word quite legitimately to those of our colleagues who did not have the privilege of serving on the Committee, and improperly to the Members of the House of Lords who will have to take up the questions that we ask? We really did try in an honest way to elicit answers to urgent questions, which were asked long before the Bill went to Committee, from the Association of Directors of Social Work, and many experts in the field, of all parties and none. A really serious attempt was made to do that. I have to say that, having been around here for a very long time, I have never served on a Committee considering a Bill where there have been so few answers. Having combed through what was done in Committee, I should like to put, as is my wont—my colleagues know it only too well and will soon be relieved—

Mr. George Foulkes: How many?

Mr. Dalyell: Eleven this time. Eleven unanswered questions. First, why are the Government making these ad hoc changes and not implementing the Finlayson report? The Finlayson committee worked absolutely seriously on the issue. No attempt has been made to implement its report. I try again. Why not?
Secondly, what specific evidence can the Government produce to justify the reporters' service becoming non-accountable at a local level? The truth is that it is becoming unaccountable.
Thirdly, why are the Government ignoring the advice of the regional councils, children's panels and the directors of social work and proceeding to establish a centralised reporters' service? My hon. Friend the Member for


Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) and others tried hard in this area to get some rational reply. We failed. No kind of answer was given to that.
Fourthly, how much autonomy will "local" reporters have in giving time to "corporate" local government child care matters?
Fifthly, who will determine how much time a "local" reporter gives to a local area? That is left entirely in the air. It is a very practical issue.
Sixthly, who will determine the length of time that a reporter remains in a particular area, and on what basis will that be decided?
Seventhly, in what areas of policy, practice, resources and finance will local reporters be prescribed by instructions from the principal reporter? That has not been replied to.
Eighthly, how will the Government ensure, in the new system, that sufficient panel numbers are recruited for each area? Will that happen by alchemy, by magic? How will proper training be provided for all panel members? How will there be consistency across all panel areas? That has not been answered at all.
Ninthly, what is the role and position of the children's panel advisory committee in the present system?
Tenthly, why is there no provision in the Bill to enable the creation of a joint panel to cover a number of local authority areas?
Eleventhly, how do the Government intend to secure the public accountability of a national reporters' service? If such accountability is to be through the Scottish children's reporter administration, how is the independence of the principal reporter in operational matters to be maintained? If it is not, to whom will the administration be accountable?
If we do not get answers this afternoon, I hope that the other place will take up those questions, and many others, in detail about this wretched, pernicious and, indeed, wicked Bill.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I do not intend to speak for long, as my voice is a bit croaky, as hon. Members can hear.
I did not have the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee like my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), but I had the immense privilege, when a councillor, to be around when the children's panels were first set up. Indeed, I was one of the first members of the Children's Panel Advisory Committee and we set up the training and selection procedures for people who were to work on the children's panels. There may have been criticism from time to time about particular areas, but by and large that system has been accepted as one of the best systems of justice for children that there has been in Scotland for many years. The system has been looked at by people from all over the world, and looked at to learn lessons from. It is strange that we should alter a system without any clear guidelines and without any real reasons.
I have been approached in the city of Aberdeen by councillors, of all political parties, who normally would not cross the road to speak to me, but they have come to see me in my surgery. They have written to me to say that they are utterly appalled at the effects of the establishment of a centralised reporting system. They just do not know what will replace it, or how the individual local input will be brought about.
One of the tragedies of the Bill is that, having decided to break up the regional council system—let us leave aside the party argument about whether we were all in favour of unitary authorities; for or against the regions, and the rest —the Government had not thought of the consequences on all the different areas of policy. Then they woke up afterwards and said, "We are breaking up the system, which had been working very well. We will have to find some way of replacing it. We shall have a centralised reporting system." It makes my blood run cold when I hear Ministers at the Dispatch Box say that it will all be done in the name of efficiency; that there will be savings; that it will be done better; and that there will be greater productivity.
In the children's panel system, we cannot put productivity, or so-called "efficiency", before the needs of children and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) said, before the needs of parents and grandparents. Therefore, there may be some local authority areas—it is not our fault—which cannot sustain a full reporting service on their own. If one breaks things up, one ends up with fragments of a jigsaw that are not the right size and perhapss have to be shaped and fitted to suit, but these new clauses would allow local control, local accountability and local service. I ask the Government not to be blinkered by previous decisions, to look at the practical realities of what we need and accept the new clauses.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: First, let me tell the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) that we recognise the strong case for legislation on the care of children. Many of the points that he raised would be relevant to a Bill on that subject and we shall consider introducing legislation when time is available.
We think it extremely important for high standards and continuity to be followed in the reporter service. One reason why we wanted to proceed on this basis was the lack of viability of some authorities under the 32-authority structure that had been proposed. The Finlayson report highlighted the great limitations on the resources of small departments, and on their ability to keep up to date with wider information on the progress of child care cases.
I was asked about closer working relationships. It will be for the principal reporter to determine the location and disposition of staff, starting from their present location and assessing local demands and conditions. The reporter staff will be based locally, but in some cases they will operate between several local authority areas. The principal reporter will regard as a major priority the maintenance of links with children's panels and with local authorities, to progress the best interests of children.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) asked me about qualifications. The principal reporter will have a degree or equivalent qualifications in relevant subjects; he will have knowledge of child care law and child development in general and he will have knowledge and experience of deciding on referrals of children who may need compulsory care measures.
Amendments Nos. 131 and 132 are technical. They are designed to clarify the scope of the Secretary of State's power under section 36 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 to make rules in relation to the duties of reporters. The amendments will ensure that that power will cover all the functions of the principal reporter—that is, his powers


as well as his duties. They also clarify the functions of the principal reporter as those to be conferred on him by the 1968 Act and the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975.
Let me deal next with amendments Nos. 133, 134 and 153. A little later, I shall discuss our reaction to new clause 7, which is similar, but in the meantime the House may wish to note the details of the amendments. They seek to place an inescapable duty on local authorities, in place of the existing discretion under the 1968 Act, to make such arrangements as they consider appropriate to enable the Children's Panel Advisory Committee to obtain names of possible panel members for submission to the Secretary of State, and also to train panel members—or possible panel members. A consequential amendment is made to the title of the Bill. The amendments will ensure that local authorities make appropriate arrangements following restructure.
From the time of the introduction of the hearings system in 1971 until the introduction of regional authorities, the previous smaller authorities are not recorded as having had any major difficulty in recruiting panel members. I suspect that new clause 5 was tabled primarily as a result of the concern expressed by some that currently in certain areas in the larger regional authorities it is difficult to recruit new members. The new authorities in those areas will be unable to maintain the required number of members.
It is important to remember that the new unitary authorities will restore local identity in many ways and will have a sharper focus on panel membership, which should help to overcome any perceived problems.
I ask the House to resist the new clause. We are, of course, investing in appropriate recruitment programmes for panels in the new areas.

Mr. Dalyell: What exactly does the Minister mean by smaller authorities having a "sharper focus"? How is it possible to have a "sharper focus" on such matters?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I mean that we expect local authorities in future, because of their size and disposition, to be more responsive to local circumstances. As I just said, we shall be investing considerably in appropriate recruitment programmes for panels in the new areas and we believe that that will be of assistance.
New clause 6 is directly opposed to the changes envisaged in the Bill. It would continue the reporter service within local authorities, but with one change—provision for authorities to create joint boards to administer the reporter service. That is a step towards overcoming the acknowledged limitations of small reporters' departments based on local councils, but we regard it as not nearly sufficient to ensure what we consider to be the necessary high standards of efficiency and effectiveness in the reporter service, which children and their families have a right to expect. In our view, those standards can best be obtained centrally through the new administration and the principal reporter. I ask the House to reject the new clause.
That brings me to new clause 7. Local authorities play a vital part in supporting children's panel advisory committees in their task of recruiting local panel members; they also play a crucial role in arranging training for panels, complementing the strong support that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gives to panel member training. I have no difficulty in accepting the thinking

behind the first part of the new clause, which replaces the existing discretion of a local authority with a duty to make arrangements that it thinks appropriate for the support of the CPAC and the training of panel members; that intention is met by Government amendment No. 134.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the proposals include the establishment of a national advisory committee in connection with the role played by the chief reporter? Can the decisions of a chief reporter be appealed against and, if so, to whom should people appeal? The Secretary of State?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I know of no such proposals, but I will make inquiries and inform the hon. Gentleman of the outcome.
Overall, new clause 7 strikes us as too restrictive and ultimately inconsistent in qualifying the local authority's discretion by empowering the Secretary of State to lay down by a formal order requirements for the authority to observe in exercising its discretion. We therefore cannot accept the latter part of the amendment. As I have said, if there is any default in duty the Secretary of State can take action under the necessary provisions laid down in the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.
New clause 8 seeks to insert a new provision to require each reporter to produce a charter relating to such issues as the Secretary of State may define, including standards of service, the accommodation of hearings and a complaints procedure. The new clause is cast on the assumption that reporters will continue to be appointed by local authorities and is opposed to the provision for a new reporter administration in part III. For that reason alone, I must reject the new clause and I ask the House to resist it.

Mr. McLeish: I think that it is the common view of the Opposition that that was a disgraceful speech on a very serious issue. As my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) pointed out, we need a children's Bill: it is ridiculous beyond extreme that we should be faced with the nonsense in this Bill without such legislation.
The Minister may differ from the official line that he has given us, but in a Scottish Office context this is a humiliation for those who care deeply about the service. It is a kick in the teeth for those who pioneered the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, developing it into a unique system to deal with children. Now the Government are not only walking away from their responsibilities, but destroying the spirit and fabric of what some people took decades to build up.
Out of the mouths of babes and Ministers! We do hear some fascinating comments. We now know that the new councils lack viability. We have small departments, and of course we are concerned about child care. We are discussing some of the most sensitive issues in social policy—the future and sensitive care of children. The Minister has accepted that there are concerns about child care; how on earth can he then set up a council the size of Clackmannan, covering 47,000 people? What are the Government up to? It beggars belief. I should like to be charitable and say that they are confused, but I cannot be charitable—[HoN. MEMBERS: "They are malicious.") Yes, malicious is the word, because there is a deep intention to undermine the fabric of an excellent service. Instead of


introducing the Bill and the investment that are needed, the utter nonsense that we have heard is paraded as a reply to serious questions and to the serious initiatives in the new clauses.
I warn the Minister that we shall continue to return to the issue. It is important that eventually some organisation and some groups in the House start to take the future of Scottish children seriously. Even if the Government will not do that, Scottish children can rest assured that in the hands of a Labour Government they will have the investment and the concern that they deserve. I do not intend to divide the House on the matter, but I ask the Government to believe our warning. They are an absolute disgrace and everything that they have said on the subject serves only to reinforce our deep suspicion that, for them, everything is market oriented, and that the needs of children in Scotland are going by default.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 9

JOINT PASSENGER TRANSPORT AUTHORITIES

'.—(1) The Secretary of State may, on an application in that regard by two or more local authorities, by order establish a passenger transport authority for the purposes of Part II of the Transport Act 1968 for such part of their areas as he considers appropriate.

(2) The provisions of sections 40 and 41 of, and Schedule 5 to, this Act shall apply with such modifications as the Secretary of State thinks fit to a passenger transport authority established under this section as they apply to the Authority established by the said section 40.

(3) The Secretary of State shall not unreasonably refuse any application made under subsection (1) above.

(4) Any passenger transport authority established under this section shall have the same powers as a local authority under section 138 of the Transport Act 1968 (travel concessions).'.—[Mr. McLeish.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. McLeish: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, we may take the following: New clause 12—Regional concessionary travel schemes—

'.—(1) The groups of local authorities listed in subsection (3) below shall establish joint boards for the purpose of operating travel concession schemes under Section 93 of the Transport Act 1985.
(2) The costs of concessionary travel schemes operated under this section shall be distributed between the member authorities of each joint board proportionately on the basis of population.
(3) The groups of authorities to establish joint boards under this section are:—

(a) City of Edinburgh Council, East and Midlothian Council, and West Lothian Council;
(b) City of Dundee Council; Angus Council and Perthshire and Kinross Council;
(c) City of Aberdeen Council; Aberdeenshire Council; and Moray Council; and
(d) Stirling Council and Clackmannan and Falkirk Council.'.


Amendment No. 167, in clause 40, page 38, line 29, at end insert—
'(1A) The passenger transport area of the Authority shall consist of the local government areas of Argyll and Bute, City of Glasgow, Dumbarton and Clydebank, East Dunbartonshire, Inverclyde, East Renfrewshire, East Ayrshire, North Ayrshire, South Ayrshire, North Lanarkshire, South Lanarkshire and Renfrewshire.'.
Amendment No. 168, in page 38, leave out line 37.
Government amendments Nos. 183, 286, 298, 299, 228, 212, 232 and 192.

Mr. Canavan: I shall begin by reading a joint statement made at a meeting held in Edinburgh on 11 April between representatives of Central, Grampian, Lothian and Tayside regional councils:
We believe that there is a danger that the reorganisation of Scottish local government will jeopardise the existing concessionary travel schemes.
We are extremely concerned about the effect that this could have on older people and people with disabilities who rely on these schemes.
We call on the Government to act to ensure that statutory provision is made to safeguard the present concessionary travel arrangements following the proposed reorganisation of local government.
Representatives of voluntary organisations that care for elderly and disabled people—the main beneficiaries of concessionary travel schemes—were also present at the meeting.
New clauses 9 and 12 would help to implement the demands of that joint statement, by introducing a statutory provision to assist with the continuation of the existing concessionary travel schemes.
I am sure that when the Minister replies he will refer us to section 93 of the Transport Act 1985, which is about travel concession schemes. That section says, inter alia:
Any local authority, or any two or more local authorities acting jointly, may establish a travel concession scheme".
The important word is "may". The 1985 Act says not "shall" but "may". However, subsection (1) of new clause 12 says:
The groups of local authorities listed in subsection (3) below shall establish joint boards".
The word there is "shall". In other words, a permissive power is given to local authorities under the Transport Act 1985, but new clause 12, tabled by my hon. Friends, is much stronger and would place a statutory duty on local authorities to act jointly in setting up joint boards to continue the travel concession schemes operating under section 93 of the 1985 Act.
It is significant that the four groups of authorities listed in the new clause make up exactly the areas of the four regional councils that sent representatives to the meeting on 11 April. The authorities in the first group cover the area of Lothian regional council, those in the second group cover Tayside, and those in the third group cover Grampian. The fourth group covers the area of what is now Central regional council.
I shall deal in detail with Central region. As the House knows, if the Government have their way that region will be split into three parts—Clackmannan, Falkirk and Stirling. I have a letter here from Councillor John Connolly, the convenor of technical services for the regional council, and on behalf of his council he reiterates the fears expressed at the meeting in Edinburgh.
The main worry is that not all three proposed successor authorities to Central regional council may have the financial resources or, indeed, the political ability or will to maintain the full range of benefits that Central regional council now provides.
There are already variations throughout Scotland between the exact details of the concessionary fares schemes operated by one regional council area and another. It is claimed that some are more generous than others. Central regional council has a scheme which appears to me


generous and fair, and I doubt whether the successor councils will have sufficient resources or will cover the breadth of area required, to operate such a scheme.
Cross-boundary travel is already possible. In Central region, for example, it is possible to benefit from the concessionary fares scheme not only when making journeys within the region but when making journeys from within the region to places as far away as Glasgow, Edinburgh, Fort William and Oban. But under the Government's proposals, even a comparatively short journey between, say, Stirling and Falkirk would be a cross-boundary journey. To get from Falkirk to Alloa or vice versa one would have to travel through Kincardine, and, therefore, through the area of Fife council. That could present all sorts of problems of co-operation between the different authorities.
As we have already said with reference to school catchment areas, it is not enough to rely on the good will of the successor authorities. We want statutory obligations to be written in. That is where new clauses 9 and 12 would help.
The present Central regional council scheme covers rail travel, too. The authority has been able to negotiate a successful discount scheme with ScotRail, mainly because it is a comparatively large authority with the resources to negotiate such a scheme. If smaller authorities had to take the initiative, get together and thrash out their own priorities and then go to the trouble of getting together with a view to entering into a joint scheme with ScotRail, they might decide not to bother. That is why it is important that there should be a statutory obligation, as proposed in the new clause.
Another difficulty is that transport operators will have many more travel passes with which to contend. There may already be slight difficulties when pensioners and disabled people travel from one region to another. Perhaps some of the Strathclyde bus operators are not too familiar with the sort of pass issued in Central region, but that is a small problem compared with the enormous ones the operators will face when dealing with all the different bus passes from the much larger number of council areas. That will lead to a rise in administrative costs for bus operators and, possibly, for councils.
5.30 pm
I want to refer to the very positive achievements of Central regional council since it was created in 1975. Previously, there were various smaller authorities that either entirely or partly formed Central region. Two of the previous authorities had no concessionary travel schemes and not one authority included rail travel in whatever schemes were operated.
Central regional council successfully introduced rail travel concessions and was the first local authority outside London to set up a taxi concessionary scheme. As a result of the council's policy, there has been a 46 per cent. increase in the number of people using travel passes—from 28,000 in 1975 to 41,000 now. That is a significant achievement.
I hope that the Minister will pay tribute to the positive achievements of Central regional council and that he will respond positively to our demands for a statutory obligation to be placed on the proposed new councils, if he is determined to go ahead with them, to set up joint

schemes to continue concessionary travel and, under new clause 9(2), for the Secretary of State to ensure the setting up of joint passenger transport authorities.

Mr. Home Robertson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) for what he said about the meeting in Edinburgh on 11 April, which I helped to organise, between Lothian regional council and the other east coast regional councils, with the aim of highlighting the likely impact of the Bill on the concessionary travel schemes in Scotland's east coast regions.
As I was responsible for drafting new clauses 9 and 12, I had better speak to them. New clause 9 would enable groups of Scottish local authorities to establish passenger transport authorities to serve their areas. It gives the House and the Government an opportunity to consider the important issues that we raised in Committee on 17 March and, I hope, to reach a positive conclusion.
If the Government are genuinely interested in letting elected local authorities take the lead in local decision making, they should accept the new clause. If they do not, people will draw the conclusion that the Scottish Office is determined to keep control of local transport initiatives in Whitehall and out of the hands of elected Scottish local authorities.
New clause 12 provides for the protection of concessionary travel schemes for pensioners and disabled people in the regions of Lothian, Grampian, Tayside and Central. They are valuable, vital schemes which could be destroyed by the Government's decision to dismantle those four east coast regions.
I have very strong feelings about transport. First, I represent a semi-rural constituency where people need good public transport to get to and from work and for access to shops, doctors, friends and most other things in life. Secondly, I am sponsored by the Transport Salaried Staffs Association, which represents the interests of staff in the transport industry.
The Bill is full of discrepancies and contradictions. We dealt with boundaries yesterday and we now have 29 supposedly all-purpose authorities on the Scottish mainland, ranging from the City of Glasgow with 620,000 people to the district of Clackmannan with 48,000 people, all with identical sets of comprehensive functions. To put it mildly, the picture is confusing.
Clause 40 relates to transport, but appears to be rather discriminatory. It re-invents Strathclyde region for the purpose of transport arrangements. I welcome that, but it is somewhat odd in a Bill which the Prime Minister, no less, said was intended to destroy the so-called monstrosity of Strathclyde. The clause makes statutory provision for continuing co-operation between the new authorities on Strathclyde that are in the Strathclyde passenger transport authority, with its commuter rail and bus services, investment programme, region-wide concessionary travel scheme and everything else. However, there is absolutely no provision for such co-ordination of services in other parts of Scotland.
I am delighted that the Strathclyde PTA is being retained, but we are entitled to demand equal opportunities and rights for people in other parts of Scotland. That is our key point this evening. Strathclyde PTA has valuable opportunities, rights and finances. Since it was established in 1975, it has opened 42 new railway stations, its subsidies have halved rail fares for people in the region, it provides


3,400 park-and-ride spaces at stations in the region and, as a passenger transport executive, it has access to substantial funding for the development of passenger transport services under section 56 of the 1968 Transport Act. It can buy its own trains, in co-operation with ScotRail, to run on local lines. It also helps to develop bus services.
All those measures have contributed to an increase in the use of public transport in Strathclyde—there is a similar story in a number of other regions in Scotland—while in other parts of the country the use of public transport has contracted since deregulation in 1986.
New clause 12 would enable authorities outside Strathclyde to get together to establish PTAs that could take advantage of the same opportunities. It would not force them to do so—as the Government are quite rightly doing with Strathclyde—but it would make it possible for them to do so if they wished. For example, the conurbation around Edinburgh is the largest in the United Kingdom that does not have a passenger transport executive.
There are significant traffic and transport problems in the Lothian area, including congestion on the Forth road bridge. The Government, for reasons that are not entirely clear—but we have our suspicions—are encouraging private developers to construct a second road bridge, with all the extra roads, traffic and environmental disruption that that would generate. Instead, the Lothian and Fife passenger transport authority might well be able to develop rail services and take other initiatives that would avoid the need for a second road bridge.
New clause 9 would leave the door open for PTAs in other parts of Scotland besides Strathclyde. It would not commit the Government to anything and I urge the Minister to consider it positively. New clause 12 deals with concessionary travel, pensioners and disabled people.
Again, we must charge the Government with outrageous discrimination against people in certain parts of Scotland. Happily, Fife, Highland, Borders and Dumfries and Galloway will be able to maintain their regional schemes because their boundaries remain intact. Strathclyde is okay, because the Government provided for the Strathclyde passenger transport executive to carry on its excellent work.
We must thank my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) for an amendment in Committee, following representations from the Strathclyde Elderly Forum, to provide specifically that Strathclyde PTE is required to operate a travel concession scheme across the region. There is an excellent scheme just now, with a flat-rate fare of 25p per journey and we hope that that can be continued.
The elderly and disabled in my constituency and throughout Lothian, Grampian, Tayside and Central regions are being left in the lurch by the legislation. Those four regions are to be broken up into small authorities, and the main cities and towns will be separated from their landward areas. There is considerable doubt about whether it will be possible to establish new concessionary schemes to let pensioners and disabled people travel across those new boundaries to and from cities at reduced fares.
I want to concentrate on the area that I know best—Lothian region, and my constituency of East Lothian. Lothian regional council has issued 135,000 concessionary travel passes to pensioners and disabled people throughout the region. Those people can make any journey by bus or train right across the region for a maximum fare of 30p,

whether it is a short hop within the city of Edinburgh or a long haul from one of the small outlying villages in East Lothian into the city.
The scheme is extremely popular and successful, and 33 million trips in total are made each year by card holders. The scheme is greatly appreciated, as I have been told again and again by organisations such as Age Concern Scotland, the Scottish Old Age Pensioners Association and Disability Scotland, and by hundreds of people in my constituency.
The legislation is putting those vital travel concessions in the east coast regions in jeopardy for two reasons; the first is administrative and the second is financial. The administrative problem, as my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West said, is genuine and it has been put to me by bus operators.
Lothian is to have four new authorities. If each of those authorities ends up with a distinct concession scheme which has separate cards, is subject to separate financial arrangements with operators and often involves journeys crossing two or more authority areas, life will be very complicated for the authorities, the bus and train conductors and—above all—for pensioners and disabled people. That is the administrative problem.
The financial problems pose the biggest threat of all. The Minister keeps telling us that there is nothing to stop the new local authorities getting together to run joint schemes. He is wrong—there is an impossible financial hurdle. It is quite straightforward and relatively cheap to carry large numbers of people over short distances within cities, but it is far more expensive to carry small numbers of passengers over long distances in rural and semi-rural areas.
I have been advised that the average cost of a concessionary trip within Edinburgh is 56p. After the concessionary fare of 30p has been paid, the cost of the subsidy is 26p per journey for a trip within the city. In the outlying areas of East Lothian, West Lothian and Midlothian the average cost is 80p a trip, so the subsidy is 50p per journey—almost double the subsidy which applies in cities.
If the scheme is to be continued with the same flat-rate fare across Lothian region, either the three outer-Lothian authorities will have to budget for a far heavier share of the cost of the scheme—and so set a significantly higher council tax—or the new City of Edinburgh council will have to hand over a chunk of its budget to subsidise people from outside its boundaries. Bluntly, that is not realistic and is most unlikely to happen.
In Committee and in meetings, the Minister insisted that the new councils will have powers under section 93 of the Transport Act 1985 to run joint concessionary travel schemes. I put it to him now, as I did then, that the administrative and financial constraints which I have just described make that very unlikely.
I asked the Minister for examples of such joint schemes in a parliamentary question on 27 April. He replied:
From the information we have available, there are no joint concessionary travel schemes currently operating in Scotland."—[Official Report, 27 April 1994; Vol. 242, c. 219.]
I asked identical questions to the Secretaries of State for Transport and for Wales, and those questions revealed a short list of co-operative schemes, mostly involving co-operation between counties and districts or boroughs


within those counties. There is very little evidence of cross-boundary schemes of the type that we need to preserve in Lothian, Grampian, Tayside and Central.
The excellent concessionary travel schemes work well at present and are greatly appreciated by pensioners and disabled people who are able to travel to and from cities for shopping, to go to hospital or to visit friends. As it stands, the legislation could put all that in jeopardy in the four east coast regions of Lothian, Central, Grampian and Tayside. That is discriminatory, unjustifiable and unnecessary. I commend the new clauses to the House.

Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: I shall speak briefly in support of new clause 9, which aims to safeguard the excellent concessionary travel scheme in Lothian region and, of course, there are similar schemes which need to be safeguarded throughout Scotland.
We have heard that 135,000 passes have been issued by Lothian and that 33 million trips have been made a year, costing the regional council more than £6 million a year. The service is highly valued by pensioners and by disabled people in Lothian.
I want to speak because many people have approached me and have come down to London to lobby Committee Members on the vital issue. They feel particularly aggrieved that protection has been given to other parts of Scotland. We all welcome the protection that has been given to Strathclyde, and one or two people may even have realised that protection was given to the whole of London by the Transport Act 1985 when the Bill that deregulated the buses in London was introduced to the House; a specific guarantee was given about concessionary travel. The people of Lothian, and other parts of Scotland, feel that they should have the same protection as people in London, Glasgow and elsewhere.
Threats will arise if the Bill goes through as it stands. One unlikely threat would be if we were to have a Tory council out of the four in Lothian. That seems highly unlikely after 5 May, but we must remember that, until 10 years ago, there had never been a majority Labour council in Edinburgh. It is unlikely to go back to a similar situation, but there would be a threat if a Tory council were elected.
That may be why the Government do not want to do anything. The Bill is creating flagship Tory enclaves and they want those small councils to have the freedom not to have concessionary travel schemes.
The second threat is financial. How can small councils support those schemes? The third, and most immediate, threat is administrative and practical. The danger is that, with four councils in Lothian, the whole scheme could fragment and it will be impossible in practical terms to administer it. That point was made forcefully and in detail to me by senior officials from Lothian region.
At present, the scheme works on the basis of an average bus journey and there is a refund by the council of the difference between the average cost of a journey on a particular route and the flat rate of 30p. It will become practically impossible to administer that scheme if journeys have to go across two or three authorities and the different authorities decide to subsidise at varying levels.
One may imagine the scene when a bus gets to a border between East Lothian and Edinburgh, and the driver has to

stop to say that all the pensioners and disabled people must have their tickets clocked in again. It is not practically possible to administer the scheme, and that is genuinely believed by senior officials of Lothian region.
The new clause suggests joint boards. In the long run, the setting up of a passenger transport executive would perhaps be best, but joint boards could do something to ensure that a unified scheme was installed. I know that it would be highly embarrassing for the Government to do that, but they have done it in other areas such as fire and police. The Government would, in a sense, be recognising " that we need larger authorities. Of course, I believe that we do need Lothian region and, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) said, aspects of the legislation almost do re-invent the region. It would be politically embarrassing, but it is necessary and I hope that the Government do it.
Some 1.2 million pensioners and disabled people in Scotland rely on the scheme, and they want a guarantee from the Government which has not been given so far. If they do not get that guarantee, they will be in an impossible position. It will be too expensive for them to stay in their homes, because of VAT on fuel, and too expensive for them to go out of their homes, because of the disintegration of the concessionary travel scheme.

Mr. George Foulkes: I want to deal with the area of the new Strathclyde passenger transport executive after reorganisation and, in particular, with amendments Nos. 167 and 168. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) is not about to leave because, unfortunately, I am sure with the best will in the world, he perpetuated a misunderstanding about the area of the new Strathclyde passenger transport authority.
As was revealed in detail in a parliamentary answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), it is proposed that after reorganisation the Strathclyde PTA will cover only Glasgow and the Lanarkshire conurbation and not the whole of Strathclyde.

Mr. Home Robertson: That is not what they said in Committee.

Mr. Foulkes: It has even come as a revelation to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Home Robertson: Probably to the Minister as well.

Mr. Foulkes: No. To be fair, I understand from other sources that the Minister is aware of the matter. When I went with members of the Strathclyde Elderly Forum to see the Minister, we received a polite, courteous and fruitful reception. Elderly people in the delegation argued that old people needed to get out and about and to stay fit and healthy, that that would ultimately result in savings for the Government, and that it was a false economy to cut concessionary fair schemes because old people would end up prematurely requiring hospital treatment and old folks' homes.
There and then, the Minister agreed to table an amendment to ensure that, as well as individual councils in the Strathclyde area, the Strathclyde PTA would be given the power to organise a concessionary fair scheme. That was welcome.
As soon as we realised, however, that the Strathclyde PTA area would cover only the Glasgow-Lanarkshire


conurbation, a number of us from Renfrewshire, Dunbartonshire and Ayrshire expressed concern that elderly people in those areas would not be able to continue to take advantage of the Strathclyde scheme if the PTA did not cover their areas.
The issue involves not only concessionary fares but co-ordination of public transport services. The Strathclyde passenger transport executive co-ordinates public transport services extremely well. I understand that Steven Lockley, the chief executive of that organisation, has made representations to the Government and is strongly in favour of the extension, or at least the continuation, of the proposed Strathclyde PTA area so that it will cover the present Strathclyde area.
As my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian said, the Strathclyde name and area will continue for the fire and police services. Although Strathclyde council will not exist, there will be a Strathclyde fire authority and a Strathclyde police authority. There is no reason why there should not be a Strathclyde PTA covering the whole of Strathclyde. That is why we have tabled the new clause.
I cannot confess that I have had total success in persuading Ministers to accept our suggestions. I achieved one or two positive things in Committee. The word "chairman" will no longer be used for the head of the authority—"convener" will be used instead. The Government have tabled amendments to that effect. Those changes are welcome. Occasionally, however, it would be helpful if one or two Conservative Members supported one of my amendments.
I understand that the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) supports the extension of the Strathclyde PTA area to cover the whole of Ayrshire, whether it be a unitary authority or three authorities covering north, south and east Ayrshire. I hope that the Minister will find that to be a compelling argument.

Mr. Worthington: I support my hon. Friend on this point. As a result of the use of the word "Strathclyde", there is a misunderstanding that the concessionary fare scheme will extend to the whole of Strathclyde, but it will not. It is important that the boundaries of the PTA are extended. In the Clydebank and Dumbarton authority, we shall have the absurd situation whereby Clydebank people will be able to take advantage of the concessionary fare scheme, but those in Dumbarton will not. That is a recipe for dissent. I hope that we shall not have part of a district in the PTA area and part of it outside.

Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend not only for his support but for giving an excellent illustration of the anomalies that will arise. The spokesman for the Opposition, my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) will be pleased to hear that that has saved me from giving a number of other illustrations.
I am sure that the Minister is aware of the anomalies and that he would not want pensioners in the Ayrshire part of Strathclyde to be discriminated against compared with pensioners in Glasgow or Lanarkshire. Even if he cannot accept—[Interruption.] As the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), realises, I am trying hard. Even if the Minister cannot accept the specific terms of amendment Nos. 167 and 168, I hope that he will accept the principle of them and consider favourably the proposal to extend the Strathclyde PTA to cover the whole of the present Strathclyde area.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) suggested that the Strathclyde PTA would be required to set up a travel concession scheme. That is not the case. Strathclyde PTA is not required to set up such a scheme, although it may do so. The powers given to the PTA are fully in accordance with the powers given to local authorities in Scotland, and travel concessions, particularly the detail of concessions, are a matter for local democracy.
The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) raised the important matter of the expenditure and costings involved. Other hon. Members will be concerned that travel concessions for journeys from the rural hinterland into cities and other places in Scotland, including his constituency, may be at risk if joint arrangements are not mandatory or if a joint board is not set up.
The worry is that city authorities might not be willing to co-operate with neighbouring rural authorities in the provision of travel concessions, but there is no reason why voluntary co-operation should not work and no reason why the councils in Lothian, Tayside, Grampian and Central should not be supported at similar levels as the present combined regional and district councils.
I confirm, and assure the House, that current expenditure will continue to be supported on an assessed needs basis. Grant-aided expenditure will include a separate GAE for concessionary travel, which will reflect the assessed needs of individual authorities. That GAE will be the subject of detailed consideration in the distribution committee of the working party on local government finance and should result in a treatment that takes account of travel patterns of different types of authorities.
There is, therefore, no reason why the new authorities should not be in a position to enter into agreements with neighbouring authorities to establish the travel concession arrangements that they think are required for their residents. Furthermore, because local authorities will still receive central Government support for concessionary travel, there should be no question of their having to cut expenditure elsewhere to continue to provide the service for senior citizens.

Mr. Alex Salmond: May I give the Minister a quick illustration of why concern exists on this issue? As he probably knows, last year a 10p concessionary fare was introduced for pensioners in Grampian. That scheme was hugely popular. Pensioners can go as far as Dundee and Inverness on that 10p fare.
Under the Government's proposals, at least seven local authorities will cover the area currently covered by the 10p fare scheme. That is a matter of controversy in Grampian regional council. The Labour and Scottish National parties introduced the lop fare. Both the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives have tried to increase the charge to at least 20p and perhaps even to wreck the scheme. The seven new authorities may have different political complexions. How can the Minister expect the matter to be as simple under his arrangements as it has been under Grampian regional council?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Such matters are best left to local democracy. Voluntary co-operation will save the day. We may play the role of the devil's advocate and assume the worst possible scenario, but the Bill provides power for the Secretary of State to create joint boards for the purpose of jointly discharging functions.
Local authorities can make representations about their creations. Any request by a group of authorities to establish a joint board would be carefully considered, but, given the powers already available to local authorities to work together if they wish, we doubt whether that will be necessary for the purpose of establishing travel concession schemes.
The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) raised a question about the boundaries which, obviously, is material to the passenger transport authority in or bordering on his area. In Committee, I made it clear that we intended to consult widely on these matters. We recognise the many legitimate interests in the boundaries concerned. It is the Government's intention to move to consultation on these matters as soon as possible.
When the matter was considered in Committee, I suggested that we might consult after 1 April. We have given the matter further thought. We consider that, in view of the urgency, it is probably desirable that we consult widely as soon as possible after the Bill is enacted. I simply mention to the hon. Gentleman that change in our thinking since the Bill was discussed in Committee, arising out of the concern which has been expressed.

6 pm

Mr. Foulkes: Can the Minister confirm that the Strathclyde Elderly Forum branches, Age Concern branches and others will be consulted, because there is strong feeling about the matter among organisations representing the elderly? They have a particular concern. Can the Minister also confirm that councillors in the existing local authorities covering the Strathclyde area will be consulted directly on the matter? Can he give an assurance that the consultation will be done fairly rapidly and a conclusion will be reached fairly rapidly, because a prolonged period of uncertainty would not be helpful?
The Minister has been very helpful on the matter. We are moving together in the right direction, so I am not criticising the Minister in any way. But if we had an assurance on those points, it would be helpful.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I can give an assurance that all the special needs groups, Age Concern, the bodies mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, the Strathclyde passenger transport executive, the user groups and all the users of travel concessions will be consulted.
I turn to new clause 9, to which the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) referred—perhaps he might like to come back in a moment. As hon. Members will be aware, clause 40 provides for the inheritance of the functions, staff, property, rights, liabilities and obligations of the regional council by a new Strathclyde passenger transport authority. The arrangement whereby a PTA and the Strathclyde passenger transport executive are responsible for public transport matters centred on Glasgow will be continued. We believe that that successful arrangement is appropriate for that area, given the scale of its public transport infrastructure and the concentration of population.
Outside the Glasgow conurbation, our view remains that the new councils will be fully capable of co-ordinating transport requirements. I remind hon. Members that local

authorities outside the PTA exercise similar powers to those exercised by PTAs. Of course, I will not read out the terms again.
The hon. Member for Falkirk, West correctly mentioned that I would be referring to section 93 of the Transport Act 1985. As he suggested, that section empowered any local authority, or any two or more local authorities acting jointly, to provide concessionary travel for certain eligible categories of persons. Those powers are discretionary. From 1 April, the new councils will retain those powers. It is important that the new Strathclyde passenger transport ' authority should have those powers, which we confirmed in Committee. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley for his remarks. I have covered the points about the consultation exercise.

Mr. Home Robertson: I welcome the assurance given to my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley that there will be consultation about what action should be taken to safeguard concessionary travel in Strathclyde and the boundaries relating to that. May we have equal rights for, equal consultation with and equal consideration of, the interests of my constituents and those of my hon. Friends in the Lothian region, and other people in the east coast regions?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: There will not be the same doubt about boundaries with regard to local authorities as there is with regard to the PTA. We believe that local authorities have the powers to co-operate and bring in the necessary concessionary schemes, and that they will bear in mind the points raised in the debate.
In view of what I have said, I ask hon. Members not to press amendments Nos. 167 and 168. I have already talked about the Government amendments, and I commend them to the House.

Mr. McLeish: I feel that on the two points that we have raised on concessionary fares and the PTA, the Government are hesitatingly moving in some direction. We are not quite sure of the direction and we are certainly not sure of the pace of the movement. I sincerely hope that these matters will be considered further in another place. Obviously, the common-sense reasoning behind both of the new clauses is evident to the Government. We are simply astonished that they are reluctant to accept them. As we do not wish to divide the House, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 10

SOCIAL WORK COMMITTEES

'.—(1) Every local authority shall establish a social work committee for the purposes of their functions under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968.

(2) Except as otherwise expressly provided, all matters relating to the performance of their functions under the following enactments—

(a) this Act as read with sections 1 and 2(1) of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 and the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986,
(b) part IV of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937,
(c) the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1958
(d) sections 10 to 12 of the Matrimonial Proceedings (Children) Act 1958, [and sections 11 and 12 of the Guardianship Act 1973]
(e) the Foster Children (Scotland) Act 1984,


(f) the Adoption Act 1958,
(g) section 101(1) of the Housing Act 1964, and
(h) section 9(1)(b) of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977
(i) the enactments mentioned in subsection (4) of the foregoing section,
(j) the Children Act 1975,
(k) the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978,
(1) section 19 and Part X of the Children Act 1989,
(m) sections 21 to 23 of the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983;
(n) the Access to Personal Files Act 1987,

shall stand referred to the social work committee, and before exercising any of the said functions the authority shall, unless the matter is urgent, consider a report of the social work committee with respect thereto.'.—[Mr. McLeish.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. McLeish: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss also the following:
New clause 11—The director of social work—

'.—(1) For the purposes of their functions under the enactments referred to in section 2 (2) the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, a local authority shall, in accordance with the provisions of this section, appoint an officer, to be known as the director of social work.
(2) The qualifications of the director of social work shall be such as the Secretary of State may prescribe.

The director of social work shall hold his office during the tenure of the local authority, but he shall not be removed therefrom, or be required to resign as an alternative thereto, except by a resolution of that authority passed by not less than two-thirds of the members present at a meeting of the authority, notice of which specifies as an item of business the consideration of the removal from office of the director of social work or his being required to resign.
The director of social work of a local authority shall not, except with the consent of the Secretary of State, be employed by that authority in any other capacity.
A local authority shall secure the provision of adequate staff for assisting the director of social work in the performance of his functions.
The provisions as to remuneration and tenure of office contained in [section 64 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973], so far as these provisions are not inconsistent with any of the foregoing provisions of this section, shall apply to directors of social work and their staffs.'.
New clause 18—Transitional Protection for Social Work Services—
'. After section 86 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 there shall be inserted:—
Local Government Reorganisation—Transitional Protection.

86A.—(1) Where a person has during the period from 1st April 1995 to 31st March 1996 received an out of area service, the local authority to whom that service is transferred shall have a duty to co-operate with the local authority for the area to which the person belongs in providing social work services to that person.
(2) The Secretary of State may direct that local authorities enter into agreements under section 57 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994 in relation to social work services where such agreements appear to him to be necessary to protect the interests of users of those services.
(3) In the event that a direction under subsection (2) is made, and it appears to any authority affected thereby that an agreement will not be entered into within a reasonable period, that authority may refer the matter to the Secretary of State.
(4) If a referral is made under subsection (3) above, the Secretary of State may, after consultation with the respective local authorities, specify terms to be included in the agreement and direct that it be proceeded with, and the prospective parties to the proposed agreement shall comply with any such directions.
(5) In this section:—

social work services" means services which a local authority are under a duty or have a power to provide, or to secure the provision of under this Act, or any of the enactments mentioned

in section 5(1B) of this Act; and "out of area service" means a social work service which is transferred by the operation of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994 to a local authority outwith the local authority area to which the user of the service belongs.'.
New clause 19—Child care plans—

'(1) Within such period after the day appointed for the coming into force of this section as the Secretary of State may direct, and in accordance with the provisions of this section, each local authority shall prepare and publish a plan for the provision of children's services in their area.
(2) Each local authority shall from time to time review any plan prepared by them under subsection (1) above and shall, in the light of any such review, prepare and publish:

(a) any modifications to the plan under review; or
(b) if the case requires, a new plan

(3) In preparing any plan or carrying out any review under subsection (1) or, as the case may be, subsection (2) above, the authority shall consult:

(a) any local authority with whom the authority has entered into an agreement under section 57 of this Act in relation to children's services;
(b) any health board providing services under the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 in the area of that authority;
(c) the police force for the area of the local authority;
(d) such voluntary organisations as appear to the authority to represent the interests of children, their families and carers within the area of the authority;
(e) such bodies as appear to the authority to provide children's services in their area;
(f) the children's panel for the area of the local authority; and
(g) such other persons as the Secretary of State may prescribe by order.

(4) Plans prepared by the local authority under subsection (1) shall include details of:

(a) the services available to children and families who live in the area of the authority;
(b) the proposals of the authority to develop and improve children's services;
(c) an assessment of future needs for children's services in the area of the local authority;
(d) the arrangements for co-operation between the authority and bodies listed in subsection (3) above; and
(e) such other matters as the Secretary of State may prescribe by order.

(5) In this section:
"children's services" means services for children which a local authority are under a duty or have a power to provide under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 or any of the enactments referred to in section 5(1B) of that Act.'
Amendment No. 32, in clause 31, page 26, line 6, leave out from beginning to end of line 15 and insert—

'Education Committees

124.—(1) Every education authority shall appoint a committee, which shall be known as the education committee to which (subject to any arrangement under section 127 of this Act, as read with section 56 of this Act, for the discharge by the education committee of any function) all their functions as such authority shall stand referred.
(1A) In this subsection, 'referred' means remitted to the committee for consideration and report to the authority but without power to the committee to discharge any function on behalf of the authority.".'.
Amendment No. 33, in page 27, line 10, at end insert—
'(6) The number of members of an education committee and their term of office shall be fixed by the appointing authority.
(7) Every member of an education committee who at the time of his appointment was a member of the appointing authority shall, upon ceasing to be a member of that authority, also cease to be a member of the committee and of any subcommittee thereof; but for the purposes of this subsection a member of an education authority shall not be deemed to have ceased to be a


member of the authority by reason of retirement if he has been re-elected a member thereof not later than the day of his retirement.
(8) Paragraphs 2, 8, 9 and 10 of Schedule 10 to this Act shall, subject to any necessary modifications, apply in relation to an education committee and to the standing reference of functions to that committee under subsection (1) above as they apply in relation to the discharge of functions by arrangements made in accordance with that Schedule.".'.
Amendment No. 34, in schedule 13, page 193, leave out line 39.
Amendment No. 35, in page 205, leave out lines 9 to 15.
Amendment No. 37, in page 205, leave out lines 19 to 22.
Amendment No. 38, in page 205, leave out lines 27 to 46.
Amendment No. 45, in page 230, leave out lines 13 and 14.
Amendment No. 46, in page 230, leave out lines 26 to 32.
Amendment No. 47, in page 231, leave out lines 30 to 34.
Amendment No. 39, in schedule 14, page 246, line 15, leave out 'Sections 2 and 3.'
Amendment No. 40, in page 250, line 4, leave out 'definitions of "education committee"' and insert 'definition of'.
Amendment No. 41, in page 252, leave out lines 9 to 16.

Mr. McLeish: This is an important set of new clauses and amendments. In Committee, we had considerable debate on what we regard again as common-sense proposals merely to retain the status quo with regard to the statutory provision of directors of social work and education and their appropriate committees. It is inconceivable that the Government are still resisting both of those ideas. We are not sure why they are resisting them. Despite the nature of the issue, the Government are not concerned about the quality of services. They seem to be willing literally to tear apart the statutory framework within which education and social work will operate with the new single-tier councils. Obviously, we are concerned about that. We have two main questions for the Government. First, why are they doing that? Secondly, are they aware of the consequences of such changes?
Once again, we are being asked to justify the status quo when the Government have put forward no case whatever to justify tearing up the statutory provision. Even in this confrontational Chamber, we are always hopeful that when the Minister rises he will simply accept the wisdom of what we are saying. However, I fear that that will not be the case this evening.
It is important for the Minister to appreciate that Scots are proud of their education services and education achievements, and their social services and social achievements. I venture to suggest that in many respects we lead Europe in both services, and in almost all respects we lead the rest of Britain. That suggestion is not designed to embarrass or insult colleagues south of the border or in Wales.
When we have a system which is doing well, but is in need of investment, the last thing to do is simply to tear up the statutory provision, walk away from it and suggest that 32 councils can provide the same quality of services in a new form. It is also important to note that we are not

dealing with small residual services tacked on to local authorities. For example, education takes 50 per cent. of local authority budgets. We are talking about a multi-million pound budget. However, the Government want to remove the statutory provision of directors of education and education committees. It is completely mad. We are used to that characteristic being exhibited by the Government. But how on earth can they justify it?
Social services are another part of local government which spends hundreds of millions of pounds each year in dealing with a vital range of services. In addition, we are talking about statutory provision with regard to a wider spectrum of public policy issues and public interest. We are talking about education and training—training our work force and educating our society for the next century. That is absolutely crucial. Would any other country regard that as a residual matter and be willing to cast off such statutory provisions?
In social services, we are dealing with some of the most important issues in the community, including some life-threatening issues in terms of child care. Of course, we are seeking to protect the most vulnerable in our communities. How on earth can the Government resist the temptation to support our new clauses? New clause 10 deals with social work, but my arguments refer to both social work and education. The Government's case is simply put.
In Committee, the Government said that statutory provision should be removed because the councils needed flexibility and discretion. What on earth does that mean? It is absolute gobbledegook.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): It is about choice.

Mr. McLeish: I have an idea for the Minister. Why not accept the wisdom that education and social services are vital? Let us give some choice to local authorities to do within a statutory framework what they think is right within their local communities. Is he against that type of choice? Of course he is, because the Government's thinking has nothing to do with flexibility and discretion.
The Government have also argued that the statutory provision could be removed because most of the functions provided by education and social services have a statutory basis anyway. They claim that each of the elements for which those services are responsible, such as child care, education and school transport, have a statutory basis.
We submit that the Government's argument is not a sensible excuse or reason for change. If one has a disparate set of functions, covered by different statutes, it is essential to accommodate the directors of both services and the appropriate committees within statutory provision.
The other reason for the Government's embrace of this daft idea is to ensure that the management madness that permeates every health board and every trust is incorporated in local government. The Government argued in Committee that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, COSLA, submitted the daft change. I can inform the House that, in a letter of 9 May sent to the Association of Directors of Social Work, Mr. Roy MacIver of COSLA stated:
I recognise that as a result of that letter"—
a previous letter sent to the Committee—
there is now the danger that the Convention's position will be misunderstood in the opposite direction, and I am therefore writing to confirm that while the Convention is not in a position


to argue for retention of the statutory requirement, its position is not one of support for the removal of that requirement.
When the Minister replies, I hope that he will—

Mr. Stewart: I know about that letter.

Mr. McLeish: I am not concerned about that. I am only concerned that the Minister does not distort this important debate by spoon-feeding us remarks from COSLA which were based on a management inquiry into local government many months ago.
The Society of Local Authority Chief Executives has also boosted the Government's case. I can imagine that if 30 new authorities are to be created, some chief executives, some general managers and some lawyers and solicitors may want to feather their own nests by suggesting that directors of education are unnecessary. They may argue that they can do the job from a legal perspective, but, once again, that is just mischievous nonsense. The Government should, ignore such advice.
We can reveal the real agenda behind the proposed change. It has nothing to do with management effectiveness, flexibility or the fact that some elements of the services have a statutory basis in any event. It is all to do with the Government's obsession with marketplace public policy. Directors of education and education committees exercise power within authorities, so it is easy to see why the Government want to sweep those obstacles away. It will be much easier for the Government to introduce a marketplace policy if those obstacles are removed. That is part of the reasoning behind the Government's dangerous and divisive proposals.
If one removes the statutory framework, where does that lead to? Child care services will be transferred to the marketplace. Will child abuse cases be subject to market testing? [Laughter.] The Minister may laugh, but this is the Government who want to privatise the Royal Mail. If they are daft enough to want to do that, a decision to transfer child care services, a sensitive issue, to the marketplace would be second nature to the kind of Scottish Office Ministers who operate every day in Scotland.
We do not need any lectures or laughter from the Minister, because we are raising a serious issue. The Government's proposals are all to do with the marketplace and market testing. They have little to do with the quality of services that we currently enjoy in Scotland.
Surely it is crucial that decisions governing social work are accountable to the community through a committee. If no such committee exists, how can those services be accountable? That seems elementary and I do not understand why the Government cannot grasp that. What about the courts and the children's panels? Who will be responsible for dealing with the children's hearing system? Who will be responsible when local authorities must exercise parental rights over children? Do we leave it to one of the corporate services lawyers, lurking about in the corridor, instead of a director of social work, who may know something about it? Do we leave it to some fag-end committee, which is responsible for social work, housing and everything else? Of course not. That is the kind of madness that will follow, however, if we allow the Government's proposals to go through.
What about people with special needs? As a result of the Bill, many small councils will be created. There might be a temptation in certain Conservative councils not to provide the right amount of investment for special needs, because those councils might want to spend the money on

something more attractive. If the statutory framework governing the work of directors of social services and education and the relevant committees is removed, as well as the ring fencing that applies to much of the budget for those services, what then for special needs? Will it remain a key concern in the community?
6.15 pm
The Government have done some pioneering work on mental health problems, offenders and drug use. I am aware of some committees which, if they were not working within a statutory framework, might consider that the development of such work was less of a priority than other work. In some communities, the provision of homes for the homeless, rehabilitation units for drug users and help for people with mental health problems may not be very popular. If the Government remove the statutory provision governing such services, they will immediately put at risk the good work that has been done by the Scottish Office and the excellent work of local authorities that have given priority to such vulnerable groups. Why on earth do the Government want to put at risk those groups by de-prioritising them through the removal of the relevant statutory framework?
Demographic changes reveal that in the years ahead the number of older people in the community will increase. Will they be left to the dictates of the marketplace? Is it right that the Government should abolish the post of director of social work and the relevant committees, given the responsibilities, skills and dedication that they have displayed over many years? A director of social work knows about the problems faced by the elderly. Is it the Government's wish simply to abandon older people to any committee and any director who is willing to assume responsibility for them?
The creation of inspection teams was a Government innovation. Why will no proper safeguards be provided to ensure that the relevant committees and directors remain in post, especially given their knowledge and responsibilities?
If the Government's proposals are accepted, there will be four consequences. First, any remaining accountability will be poor or non-existent. Secondly, we will witness an inevitable drive towards lower standards in this vital area of public provision. Thirdly, vulnerable people will be placed at much greater risk. Finally, we will see the disintegration of many services. The absence of coherent, committed leadership, either from committees or directors, will have a devastating effect on the good work that has been done.
Since 1968, Scotland has offered social work services and complementary services in education. Those services must continue to be offered and must receive investment. We do not need to play at party politics with the lives and jobs of many people in the community who provide vital services.
I ask the Government to think seriously about what they are doing. For the life of me, I cannot see the politics of this. I know that on many occasions the Government have demonstrated that they are greatly in favour of the market and I can see the politics of that. I simply cannot see the politics behind the Government's wish to abandon and sacrifice social work and education services that have built up over the years. Their decision is based on no consensus or support.
The Minister is always willing to joust in debate, so perhaps I can give him the real reason for the Government's kamikaze policy. The Minister has not said a word, but I think that he will be amused by the following. In the House, the Minister has referred to a councillor, Mr. Ian Hutchison. I can reveal to the House—I know that the Minister will not—that, because Ian Hutchison dared to criticise the Minister and the Conservative party, his Tory-controlled district council has removed him from the delegation to COSLA. Is not that symptomatic of the fact that the Conservative party, which criticises eastern European republics, operates a campaign of fear and witch-hunts for its members?
I want to finish on a charitable note. [Interruption.] Well, I am a charitable man. I should like the Minister to respond positively, after the debate, to those services. Let us keep the statutory provision. Let us not put at risk the most vulnerable members of Scotland's communities.

Mr. Connarty: I was going to intervene in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish), but I shall remark that perhaps it is justice that Colonel Saunders, the former leader of the Conservatives on Central regional council, and Mrs. McNicol, the member for Bridge of Allan, stood against the Government's proposals for local government, thereby assisting the Labour party to rid Stirling conurbation of the Conservative representation in King's Park and Bridge of Allan. There is justice in democracy after all.
I shall speak about services. I concur with everything said by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central about the structures and the Government's lack of intelligence in trying to set up systems for social work and education under the new systems of local government without statutory committees or statutory directors.
I add a remark or two on the issue of a children's Act, because the potential role of social work and the role that social workers and the mediation services perform is made much more difficult by the lack of a children's Act in Scotland. The potential role of a social work department and the mediation services is to reduce misery to children caused, for example, by marital break-up. The services labour under a great difficulty as a result of the Scottish system.
In spite of the work of Relate and mediation services, divorce in Scotland is still a battlefield and children are the main casualties. The definition of "custody" in Scots law, which we hope will be changed by a children's Act, is:
the possession of the child
— as though the child were a motor car or the Elvis Presley records that are divided up during the marital break-up.
I commend the work of Children's Act (Scotland), a group of parents of all genders outwith the House with whom I went to meet the Minister of State, Scottish Office, who is in another place. Sadly, we do not have an elected representative responsible for many of the things that would relate to the Children's Act (Scotland) in this place. We have a subsidiary Member here because a non-elected Member is appointed in the Lords to look after that service.
We went, on 6 May 1994, to present the Minister of State with a birthday cake to commemorate the second anniversary of the publication of the consultation document on the Children's Act. There has been no visible progress on that consultation since. I hear that the Government blame some of the people who are being consulted, but there seems to me a lack of credibility.
I also commend the work of the Scottish all-party group on children, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). Until we pass a children's Act, the social work departments in Scotland will be forced to act as the ball-bearings in the machine of society without any ability to become the drivers of the machine—a machine that, sadly, at least in marital break-up in Scotland, grinds up the children when it should give them rights, and those rights should protect them.
I am seriously disappointed with the Government's failure to respond to the anxieties of groups such as Enable and Children in Scotland. They were worried, during the passage of the Bill, about its results for children with special educational needs and other needs, and remain just as worried now in spite of all the discussions and correspondence.
Opposition Members tried to help the Government during the passage of the Bill by proposing an amendment, which I paraphrase. It says that if, as a consequence of the break-up of any local authority boundary, school education for children with special educational needs belonging to the area of one education authority be provided at schools or educational establishments under the management of another educational authority, the education authority in which the child lives shall have a duty to make arrangements with the provider authority to ensure an adequate and efficient education for the child or young person with special educational needs. We emphasised the fact that that would include an appropriate level of psychological services support and, in the case of a child or young person with a record of needs, the services specified therein.
That was a helpful amendment and the debate in Committee at the time was one of the most measured and reasonable. People were trying to tackle a real problem which they understood was critical to the individual child and the parents of that child. I, for my part, have witnessed the process many times. I was a teacher of children with learning difficulties for 15 years. The time comes when the child and the parent—especially the parent—realise that the child is not as gifted as other children, cannot cope in a mainstream school and can often, if the treatment is wrong, end up stigmatised and deprived of a proper and full life in the future. The passage through that barrier is a trauma which I, thank goodness, have never had to experience personally. I know that, for the parents who have had to go through it, it is the most traumatic experience that any of us could have.
If one then enters the morass of a lack of provision—the morass of wondering where that provision will come from, who will provide it, whether we have statutory rights, by what mechanism we obtain those statutory rights and whether we have to end up in the courts or appeal to a higher authority—it becomes a nightmare. We tried to emphasise, by our amendment, that we should make a specific reference in the Bill—a final declaration—to who will be responsible, with no equivocation.
The Minister's reply can be found in the report of the Standing Committee. He was saying at that time that the Government had made great advances and they were issuing guidance for consultation at this moment
on the issue of provision throughout Scotland, including the recording arrangements.
I have read the document. It is entirely about recording arrangements. It is not about provision. It has nothing to


say about provision. Yet the whole debate was centred on the issue of who will provide and who will have the responsibility to provide.
The Minister went on to say:
Similarly, section 62(3) of the 1980 Act lays a specific duty on an education authority to make provision for special educational needs of recorded children, and recorded young persons, in its area.
I repeat that quote—"in its area." The problem is that many of the provisions will not lie in the person's area any longer, but will lie outwith the area because the Government have decided to break up local authorities into such small units that the provision will not be made in those areas.
The Minister went on to say:
Clause 32 will enable new arrangements for cross-border provision of education to be made, and old arrangements to continue.
I think that the Minister accepted that I was not satisfied with that, and that it would give no automatic safeguards, because he went on to say that it was all right because the children would continue to live in the area in which they were currently located. He says clearly:
Special schools making provision for children and young persons with special educational needs are not being relocated. Children with such needs will be living in the same location." —[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 10 March 1994; c. 1056–7]
The problem is that the children will not be in the same local authority any longer. In many more cases—an enlarged number, if not the majority, of cases—the provision will lie outwith the area in which the child lives. It is an inherent contradiction in the Bill, and it is not resolved by anything that the Government have done or anything that they have written to me since, or anything that has been said to me in discussions with members of the Scottish Office staff since.
I mentioned the problem of making one authority raise taxation to provide an infrastructure for another authority. There is a second problem of making a local authority open the doors of provision, and possibly extend those provisions to people who do not lie in its catchment area. From my experience, I can guarantee that there is a growing need, especially at secondary level, for special educational provision for children as we realise the type of provision that is required by many more pupils.
I shall cite one example in central Scotland, which I know best. Clackmannan, the smallest authority with 47,000 inhabitants, will not have a single provision for secondary education for children with mild, profound or severe learning difficulties, as those provisions all lie in the Falkirk area.
I taught in a school for children with mild learning difficulties, and attached to it, in other locations, were schools for children with profound and severe learning difficulties. That provision will have to be bought across the border. Does the Minister think that it will be easy to persuade the Falkirk unitary authority to provide that service, particularly given the pressure that will fall on all local authorities for resources when the cost of the reorganisation must be borne and services must be cut left, right and centre? I do not believe that it will.
What the Government have been saying smells of complacency. Although local authorities have been co-operating, they have had the critical mass to do so. They have had an extended psychological service—an extended provision for mildly, severely and profoundly handicapped children; and they have had a network that allows them to

co-operate. Once authorities are broken up, the critical mass of provision will also be broken up. Authorities will be much reduced, whether provision is in Stirling, with its centre for children with cerebral palsy, or in Falkirk, with the facilities that I have just mentioned. Once the psychological services have been broken up, local authorities will be strained and stretched and are unlikely to co-operate in providing facilities to people across the borders.
6.30 pm
I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central was correct to say that the Government, driven by an ideology, want the children of Clackmannan to be driven on to the market. I do not believe that the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), is involved in that conspiracy as he is a man of integrity. The Government are not considering the long term. In a generation from now, will children from Stirling simply cross the border to Falkirk? If they have to hunt round the markets of Scotland for the provision that they need, the Government will be damned for what they are doing.
My main worry is that the arbiter will be the Secretary of State. Under clause 17, if a local authority does not provide and is in default, a parent can appeal to the Secretary of State. Every case in which a parent must appeal for provision to the Secretary of State becomes a cause celebre in the media. It denigrates and degrades the process of special educational provision, as it is seen as a war on behalf of the child between the Government Department and the local authority. The media love it, and the Government love to see a local authority being taken to task and the Secretary of State arbitrating. If the Government want a media circus in thousands of cases, it is a damnable disgrace and they should be ashamed.
If the Government have a will to solve the problem, they should reconsider it and come back with a clear statutory duty that no one can avoid. But they should remember to put their resources where they are putting their so-called statutory duties.

Ms Rachel Squire: I wish to support the amendments, especially new clauses 10 and 11 on the statutory need for social work committees and a director of social work. I pay tribute to the work carried out by social work committees, social work staff and all council committees. All too often, they are criticised rather than praised. I admit that I have a vested interest because back in the 1970s I was a social worker. I expect to hear a collective groan at that. The qualities and skills of social work committees and staff are undervalued, particularly by the Government's proposal.
Nearly 20 years after the last local government reorganisation, which was decided after an independent commission, some people are still not sure which council department to go to. Social work, however, is an exception; people know that if they need personal help or help for their family they go to the social work department. The removal of the statutory right to have a social work director and committee could disrupt accessibility for the public.
One of the main reasons for opposing the Bill is the disruption that it will cause to community care, in which social work committees and directors play a vital part. The Government had the sense to recognise, when they passed


the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, that they should allow three years for the structures to be set up, so the Act did not come into effect until 1993. The process of co-ordination and consultation is still going on. In many ways, it is still in its early stages, but it will all be disrupted by the Bill, and especially by the removal of statutory rights. Moreover, the smaller councils being created may be unable to continue the work and structures that have been set up.
On the impact that the removal of the social work director and committees will have on voluntary organisations, I will quote from three of such organisations. The chairman of the Glenrothes branch of Age Concern Scotland said:
As a voluntary oganisation engaged in the provision of Day Care and ancillary services to physically frail and disadvantaged elderly people of the community, we observe with the utmost concern that the above Bill proposes to abolish the statutory requirement for the new Councils to have a Social Work Committee and a Director of Social Work who is professionally qualified".
The Epilepsy Association of Scotland said the same, and added:
We have a further concern that the sensitive and fruitful partnerships which exist between statutory Social Work Departments and voluntary agencies like our own would be endangered, to the detriment of vulnerable people in need of services.
The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations said:
There may be a loss of commitment to some of the less popular clients of social work services, such as ex-offenders, drug users and people with mental health problems.
I stress the impact that that could have on the most important people—the users of those services, particularly carers. Tens of thousands of people look after a loved one at home but rely on the accessibility of social work services in order to carry out that care.
Why are the Government so intent on removing that statutory right? It is, in effect, a denial by the state of the responsibility that we all share for every section of our community. In Committee the Minister talked of the "freedom to choose", which shows that the Government are bent on privatising social work services. They may be planning to create social work trusts, as we now have NHS trusts, or to merge social work and health board provision, as they have in Northern Ireland. From my contacts with people in Northern Ireland, I know that that has not been successful.
I urge the Government to prove me wrong and to show their support for the continuation of community care and social work services by agreeing to the amendments, particularly new clauses 10 and 11.

Mr. James Wallace: I wish to support new clause 10, which was moved by the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish). The members of my party had a very genuine debate about the merits of leaving to the discretion of local authorities whether there should be a director of social work and a social work committee. For a party which believes very much in decentralised decision-making, this is a very legitimate debate. We would have been much more convinced about the spirit in which the proposal is put forward if it had come from any source other than a Government who have sought to destroy so many of the other powers of local democracy.
There was a very strong countervailing argument, however, that with regard to the powers and responsibilities of social work, as set down in statute, serious professional direction must be provided. Subsection (2) of new clause 10 sets out a huge range of functions, the performance of which is the responsibility of social work departments. The details are very clear, as is the fact that these are people-centred responsibilities, often concerning vulnerable individuals. Clearly, the discharge of the functions is sometimes not without controversy—a point which, on the basis of constituency experience, I must accept. For that reason, responsibilities need to be discharged by someone who can be an adviser as well as a manager. In such circumstances, management is not a question just of looking at efficiency and functions in an abstract way. We are dealing here with people, and many of the functions interact. This is why we have concluded that there ought to be a chief officer with professional qualifications.
The Secretary of State said in a letter to me that he would be issuing guidance under section 5(1) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 with regard to the staffing arrangements that local authorities should make. The right hon. Gentleman said:
This will include guidance on the need to ensure professional oversight of social work services at the appropriate level in the organisation.
I envisage the need for officers with that professional expertise in addition to senior managerial posts. This would not necessarily produce efficiency if it amounted simply to duplication of posts. Inevitably, these services must be people-centred rather than profit-centred or efficiency-centred. The latter would take away any sense of how responsibilities impinge on people. If there is to be a manager, he or she ought to have the proper qualifications and sensitivities.
In a parallel case, it was proposed that we should do without directors of education. One of my party's councillors—a regional councillor with long experience of education committees—said in a letter to me:
A manager would probably ensure that the right number of desks and chairs went into a school and that teachers' allocations were numerically correct, but the innovative curriculum would be stifled.
There is a parallel fear in respect of social work—that, while one might get some of the numbers right, one would not necessarily get right the policies and their operation as they affect people.
I should like to refer briefly to new clauses 18 and 19. The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) probably hopes to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, with a view to commenting on these provisions. While I do not want to steal the hon. Gentleman's thunder, I must echo something that has been said many times during the debate—the time is long overdue for putting on the statute book many of the proposals contained in the White Paper on children published as long ago as last August. That White Paper brought together many proposals which emanated from a number of earlier studies and inquiries, such as the inquiry conducted by Lord Clyde in my constituency following the removal of nine children in February 1991. The White Paper was given a wide welcome in the House. No doubt we shall debate some of its detail in due course, and differences will undoubtedly emerge.
We should all like to see the adoption of the principles of a child-centred White Paper which stresses the


importance of the views of the child. It is a matter not just of regret but of shame that legislative time has not been found for this purpose. In terms of provision for Scotland, Parliament would have done a greater service to the people, particularly the young people, by producing legislation on children rather than a Bill to reform local government.
New clause 18 sensibly provides for the continuation of services that will become cross-boundary when the new boundaries come into operation. With regard to children in receipt of these services—for example, those in residential establishments and those benefiting from specialised educational facilities—we cannot rest on the basis of permissive provision. If those services were discontinued, the young people would be the sufferers.
New clause 19 contains a requirement that was proposed in the White Paper—that local authorities should publish plans in relation to child care services. This emphasises the importance of an interdisciplinary approach, and it is long overdue. The new clause and the debate on it give us an opportunity to make a small contribution to putting on the statute book one of the many important proposals contained in the White Paper. Of course, that is no substitute for the substantive Bill which I hope we shall be told is to come along in the next Session.

Dr. Godman: I want to speak in support of new clauses 18 and 19, which appear under my name. I should like to say in passing that I support new clauses 10 and 11 also. In my view, each of the new local authorities should have both a social work committee and a director of social work. That is certainly what I hope for in the case of the new council in Inverclyde.
I want to echo some of the points made by other hon. Members. I, too, believe that Scotland has first-class social work departments providing essential services for people of all ages. At a local level, I work closely with area teams and with hospital teams when constituents need help. In Inverclyde, the three welfare rights officers employed by the social work department of Strathclyde regional council provide an excellent service to people of all types who are in need of one kind or another.
There is no doubt that politicians and others place huge responsibilities on social workers, who perform extremely difficult tasks with commendable efficiency. Too often, in the House of Commons and elsewhere, moralists malign social workers unfairly on the basis of lazy judgments. I often say to such critics that they would not last a month in an area social work team. Indeed, some of them would not last two days. Social workers perform extremely difficult tasks, often under the threat of violence. They go about their work in an unassuming way and the overwhelming majority display admirable competence.
I have been advised to make my intervention brief, and I had better do so. However, I have to say that the Government and their predecessors have adopted a dismally piecemeal approach to child care legislation, in respect of which this legislature seems to be engaged in a leap-frogging game. In the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 we had a dramatic development. I thought then and I still believe that that was an extremely radical and brilliant measure. In some respects, however, Scottish law has fallen behind English legislation. That is especially true of our lack of a comprehensive children Act.
I am deeply grateful for all the fine work that the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) does in this field, and to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) for his campaigning efforts. The purpose of new clause 18 is to protect people who need to use social work services that will not be found in their own council areas. The Minister cannot deny that many people need to use services that are outwith the communities in which they live. Children in residential establishments are a good example.
Some years ago, my wife, then a senior social worker in the east end of Glasgow, had occasion to take a young girl into care, by way of a place of safety order. She also had to take the girl's three brothers into care. They were placed in a fine establishment many miles down the coast, away from Glasgow but still within the Strathclyde regional council's social work department area. Unfortunately, the children had to spend two periods in the establishment, but they were quite happy there. They had come from the most appalling domestic circumstances.
What would happen under the Bill? The Minister will tell me, referring to clause 57, that such services can be bought in from other councils. Social work services, however, are much more vulnerable than education services, for instance. The statutory duties in the Bill governing the provision of such services are somewhat vague, and in practice they are unenforceable. Whereas in education children and their parents have the right to choose a school and to enjoy certain other guarantees, the same does not apply to children and others who require the services of a social work department.
Under the new clause, the councils that inherit certain services would have a duty to co-operate with the other councils in whose areas the users of a service resided. As a last resort, the Secretary of State would be able to step in to ensure that those who rely on the services do not suffer. Services change over time, of course, but it is vital to offer transitional protection to all vulnerable clients—people with learning disabilities, for instance, and young children.
As for new clause 19, I believe that a duty should be imposed on the new local authorities to prepare and publish child care plans. That would be a useful way of ensuring that children's services were protected and enhanced. Such plans could be required to describe how the needs of children with disabilities would be met. They might involve the participation of voluntary organisations, working beside local authorities to provide the necessary services.
That new duty could go a long way to answering the concerns felt by many of us—that children in need and vulnerable people may suffer as a result of this legislation. I remind the Minister of what he and his officials said in the White Paper, "Scotland's Children", in paragraph 8.13:
At a strategic level the Government will introduce a new requirement on local authorities to publish plans in relation to child care services".
The new clause merely seeks to implement what the Minister and his officials proposed in their fine White Paper. Some of the new duties are described thus:
a clear appraisal of the strength and weaknesses of current services;

an assessment of future needs;
an estimate of likely available resources;
a statement of strategic objectives for service development;
a review of innovative developments."

All these are what we seek to achieve by way of the new clause.
Children, particularly those living in difficult circumstances, need a comprehensive children Act in Scotland. Indeed, I hope that such a Bill will feature in the Gracious Speech later this year. It is our children who suffer from the leap-frogging effects of legislation being enacted for the two legal systems in the United Kingdom. Some of our Scottish measures would benefit English children if they were translated into English law, but we in turn need a children Act for all the reasons that I have explained. Admittedly, the new clause is part of the general piecemeal approach to children's needs, but I hope that the Minister will give us a positive response to the concerns expressed in the debate today.

Mrs. Ewing: I support new clause 10, but, like the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), I want to speak to new clauses 18 and 19, to which I am a signatory.
I echo some of the comments made on new clause 10 in connection with social work committees and the appointment of directors of social work. Unlike the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire), I was not a social worker, but I was involved in the administration of a course of training for professional social workers—the certificate in social services. At that time, I saw men and women of all age groups who were seriously committed to eradicating many of the problems that our people face. I therefore have great admiration for social workers, and I echo what the hon. Lady said about them. Like politicians, social workers often seem to be the fall guys for the popular press, even though they undertake jobs that many of us would be too frightened to perform ourselves. They do great work for children, the elderly, the handicapped and, indeed, for all sections of society and they should be given due credit.
I believe that a statutory duty should be written into the Bill, stipulating that the profession must provide the services and giving people who need them a statutory right to those services. The Government have not acted to allay the fears that many people have, arising from the fact that the local government transitional arrangements are due to last two years. Elections will be held next year. I want to be able to reassure my constituents that their social work facilities will be guaranteed throughout that time. We cannot tell them to wait until next year or the year after that. When people need social work facilities, they need them immediately. The Government must acknowledge and deal with that fact.
The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow has already dealt effectively with new clause 19. I remind the Minister that we must always recognise the needs of the child. The Scottish Law Commission report seems to have been gathering dust while Scottish children have been relegated to the bottom of the heap. We have had publication of the White Paper, "Scotland's Children," and the family law report No.135. We have also debated them in the Scottish Grand Committee, but there seems to have been no progress whatever. I remind the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), that in the Scottish Grand Committee he referred to
the priority that we, and I believe all members of the Committee, place on the care of children."—[Official Report, Scottish Grand

Committee, 2 November 1993; c. 1.]
It seems to have slipped down the Government's list of priorities.
7 pm
In tabling this all-party group of amendments, we have worked closely as a group and have met Ministers and others in the context of our discussions and we want to ensure that children are placed high on the Government's list of priorities. The Gracious Speech may not include a separate Scottish Children Bill, but we certainly wish to see that and I hope that we shall obtain that commitment when we meet Lord Fraser of Carmyllie on 25 May. However, it would be interesting to hear in the elected House of Commons exactly the view of the Scottish Office. Are Ministers pushing for such legislation in the next Session, or will they let it continue to peter out until our Scottish children can say they are denied their rights, unlike their counterparts south of the border who have the children Acts?

Mr. Worthington: The new clauses seek to set up a social work committee and appoint a director of social work. However, they are angry gestures and gestures of despair; perhaps they are means by which we may be able to stop some of the damage that we believe will be caused by the legislation.
Just 20 years ago last week, the new local authorities in 1974 came into force. They began their preparatory year before taking over from social work authorities the size of Clackmannan. It was a pretty desperate scene. There were a lot of well-meaning people around, but there was a shortage of that much despised but important professionalism, drive and vision.
Enormous progress has been made since then, but I fear that we shall slip backwards because of this legislation. People have talked eloquently about the role of social workers who deal with that with which other people cannot cope—they have to cope with circumstances that are too much for other people. I am thinking particularly about the progress that has been made in adoption and fostering over the years. Some of the large local authorities now have the resources and skills to place hard-to-place, damaged children who in the past would have stayed in institutional care for the rest of their lives. I cannot see that happening in the new local authorities covering a population of 47,000.
Mental handicap is another important concern. There is an adult training centre in my constituency. Some of the people who were in that adult training centre when I came into local government 20 years ago are still there. It is difficult to decide whether that is right or wrong, but an adult training centre can either be a warehouse to which people turn up each day, or it can be a lively, thriving place which is driven by professional standards and genuine care for those adults and their families.
We should consider the complexity of the issues involved in taking someone into care and the enormous power which rests with a social worker and a social work department to take someone from his home and to use that power for the benefit of the child and his family. Unfortunately, the Bill does not give a tinker's cuss about those issues and uses local authorities as political playthings.
No thought has been given to issues relating to the abuse of drugs and the complexity of getting policies to work with the police and the health authorities. Am I


seriously to believe that my new local authority of Clydebank and Dumbarton will liaise effectively with the Greater Glasgow health board and Argyle and Clyde health board? Is anyone seriously expecting small local authorities to have the clout to do that?
The new clauses are asking someone in the Government at long last to start listening to the cries of despair. Simply as an act of revenge against Labour local authorities, to divide and rule and to create pathetic little enclaves for little clusters of the nearly extinguished species of the Conservative councillor, they are damaging local authority services.
The new clauses are gestures, but they are angry and despairing gestures and I hope the Minister will think and listen.

Mr. Dalyell: On the question of listening, I should like to make an observation, but first I shall ask two questions of the Minister that concern his constituency and mine. First, he will know that there is great concern about those who work in the Blindcraft factory. Alex Scott, the secretary of Blindcraft, has contacted us all. I have spoken to him and there is considerable concern about the future of that factory if it is not supported by Lothian region.
My second question affects a small minority—those who teach lip reading. It is the considered professional opinion that it has to be done on a large scale and a number of us have received communications about the viability of teaching lip reading in Lothian region.
I wanted to take advantage of the presence of the vice-chairman of the Conservative party to make an observation to the Minister. Does he realise that the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), who is sitting next to him, and the Secretary of State are busily losing him his parliamentary seat by their non-answers?
For more than 30 years, I represented the royal borough of South Queensferry. I know it extremely well and there has always been a substantial Conservative vote there. It is a very serious place and the voters are certainly entitled to their opinions, which have always been well-expressed.
If I were a betting man, which I am not, I should have thought that the Edinburgh, West constituency would remain in the Conservative party. I say in all seriousness, because I am not a yah-boo person, that, chiefly through what has happened in the Bill and the general attitudes that have been displayed, at the next election when South Queensferry goes into his constituency, the Minister will come not first, not second but a very poor third, as the local authority Conservative candidate did, and where there is a very decent Conservative district councillor. It is a sea change.
If I were in the Minister's position on the Bill, I would say to the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Eastwood, who, frankly, has been very frivolous in his presentation and non-answers, and to the Secretary of State, who cares about many things but, I am sorry to say, does not care about local government, that I found it extraordinary that the Secretary of State has not been in the House of Commons very much today. If the Secretary of State cared about local government, he would have been in the Chamber for the debate. It is about time that the Minister—who is a personal friend of many years' standing—made it quite clear to his senior colleagues that it is either their ill-informed opinions or his seat.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I think that the best course is for me to send the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) a copy of the letter that my office sent to the National League of the Blind and Disabled about Blindcraft. Obviously, the same duties will remain in place. We believe that it is a matter for local democracy to decide.
I will deal with three groups of amendments—new clause 10, dealing with social work committees and directors of social work; various amendments dealing with education committees and directors of education; and the new clauses dealing with out-of-area social work services.
The thrust of our policy is freedom and flexibility for local authorities. The majority of responses to the consultation paper favoured removing the statutory requirements. Social work will remain one of our most important responsibilities. We have major initiatives in community care, child care and criminal justice.
Each authority will have to make certain that there is oversight of professional social work tasks and clear arrangements for accountability and professional standards. Section 5 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 will remain in place, making it clear that local authorities perform their duties under the guidance of the Secretary of State. We will issue guidance about staffing arrangements and we will monitor the establishment and development of the services concerned.
We believe that local authorities should be free to determine their own internal organisational requirements. Some may decide to appoint social work committees, to combine social work functions with housing, to manage services on a corporate basis, or to decentralise and involve more local management in a range of functions. Some authorities may wish to appoint directors of social work; others may wish to combine this function with another area, such as housing or possibly leisure and recreation.
I was interested to see the confusion expressed by some Opposition Members in Committee. Local councils will still be able to appoint directors of education and establish education committees. The proposal to remove the statutory requirement for an education committee emerged from a working group. Since that time, there has been consultation about the matter. Not only the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives, but the majority of those consulted expressed strong views in favour of leaving the discretion to local authorities.
For the benefit of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), at this stage there is no requirement that the director of education need have any teaching or other professional qualifications—although it is highly desirable that he does.

Mr. Dalyell: So that it is clear and beyond doubt, what is the Minister saying that SOLACE agreed to and supported?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Member knows that perfectly well, because I read out its representations in the Standing Committee. He can look up the Standing Committee transcript; it is on the record. It is plain and unmistakable. It supported local authorities having discretion in this connection. Of course, it paid tribute to the work of the directors, but it made its view quite clear.
For years, social work authorities have co-operated with one another in relation to the purchase and supply of


services for people living outwith their areas. The 1968 Act enables an authority providing a service to a person outwith its area to recover the cost of that provision from the authority in whose area the person lives.
We do not believe that the level of coercion in new clause 18 is either necessary or desirable. It is not necessary because it will clearly be cost-efficient for authorities supplying facilities or services to utilise them fully. We do not believe that it is desirable to coerce authorities. In any case, the Bill provides for authorities to receive the necessary information, including details of services bought out of area or provided to those living outwith the area. There are various means whereby the needs of those currently receiving out-of-area services can be assessed fully and properly.
New clause 19 is in keeping with the provision to introduce child care plans proposed in the White Paper "Scotland's Children", in which the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) is very interested. Initial work on planning has taken place between Scottish Office officials and local authorities. We are determined to develop a new system in due course as part of child care legislation, not local government legislation. Before finalising the new system, we want to consult local authorities and other interested parties. We will ensure that services are maintained properly during the period of local government reorganisation.

Mrs. Ewing: I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. He knows of my interest and that of hon. Members from other parties in this matter. When he says that further consultation is needed, does not he accept that there has already been very substantial consultation about this matter? Although we will now have new local authorities, there is surely a possibility of introducing child care legislation in the new parliamentary Session next year. We are fed up with waiting for it.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am not in a position to reveal the contents of the Queen's Speech; I have no knowledge of that at present. However, it is certainly a priority that will be borne in mind for the future.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 244, Noes 274.

Division No. 242]
[7.15 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Bermingham, Gerald


Ainger, Nick
Berry, Roger


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Betts, Clive


Allen, Graham
Blair, Tony


Alton, David
Blunkett, David


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Boateng, Paul


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Boyes, Roland


Armstrong, Hilary
Bradley, Keith


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Ashton, Joe
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)


Austin-Walker, John
Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Burden, Richard


Barnes, Harry
Byers, Stephen


Barron, Kevin
Caborn, Richard


Battle, John
Callaghan, Jim


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Bell, Stuart
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Bennett, Andrew F.
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Benton, Joe
Canavan, Dennis





Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Janner, Greville


Clapham, Michael
Johnston, Sir Russell


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Clelland, David
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Coffey, Ann
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Connarty, Michael
Khabra, Piara S.


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Corbyn, Jeremy
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Corston, Ms Jean
Kirkwood, Archy


Cousins, Jim
Lewis, Terry


Cummings, John
Livingstone, Ken


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Dafis, Cynog
Llwyd, Elfyn


Dalyell, Tam
Loyden, Eddie


Darling, Alistair
Lynne, Ms Liz


Davidson, Ian
McAllion, John


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
McAvoy, Thomas


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
McCartney, Ian


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
Macdonald, Calum


Dixon, Don
McFall, John


Dobson, Frank
McKelvey, William


Donohoe, Brian H.
McLeish, Henry


Dowd, Jim
Maclennan, Robert


Dunnachie, Jimmy
McMaster, Gordon


Eagle, Ms Angela
McNamara, Kevin


Eastham, Ken
MacShane, Denis


Enright, Derek
McWilliam, John


Etherington, Bill
Madden, Max


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Mandelson, Peter


Fatchett, Derek
Marek, Dr John


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Fisher, Mark
Martlew, Eric


Flynn, Paul
Maxton, John


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Meacher, Michael


Foster, Don (Bath)
Meale, Alan


Foulkes, George
Michael, Alun


Fraser, John
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Fyfe, Maria
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Galbraith, Sam
Milburn, Alan


Galloway, George
Miller, Andrew


Gapes, Mike
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Garrett, John
Morley, Elliot


George, Bruce
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Gerrard, Neil
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Mowlam, Marjorie


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Mudie, George


Godsiff, Roger
Mullin, Chris


Golding, Mrs Llin
Murphy, Paul


Graham, Thomas
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
O'Hara, Edward


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Olner, William


Grocott, Bruce
O'Neill, Martin


Gunnell, John
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hain, Peter
Parry, Robert


Hall, Mike
Patchett, Terry


Hanson, David
Pendry, Tom


Harman, Ms Harriet
Pickthall, Colin


Harvey, Nick
Pike, Peter L.


Henderson, Doug
Pope, Greg


Heppell, John
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hinchliffe, David
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hoey, Kate
Prescott, John


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Primarolo, Dawn


Home Robertson, John
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hood, Jimmy
Radice, Giles


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Raynsford, Nick


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Redmond, Martin


Hoyle, Doug
Reid, Dr John


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Rendel, David


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Hutton, John
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Ingram, Adam
Rogers, Allan






Rooker, Jeff
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Rooney, Terry
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Rowlands, Ted
Tyler, Paul


Ruddock, Joan
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Salmond, Alex
Wallace, James


Sedgemore, Brian
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Sheerman, Barry
Wareing, Robert N


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Watson, Mike


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Welsh, Andrew


Short, Clare
Wicks, Malcolm


Simpson, Alan
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Skinner, Dennis
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Wilson, Brian


Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Winnick, David


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Wise, Audrey


Soley, Clive
Worthington, Tony


Spearing, Nigel
Wray, Jimmy


Spellar, John
Wright, Dr Tony


Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Stevenson, George



Stott, Roger
Tellers for the Ayes:


Strang, Dr. Gavin
Mr. Eric Illsley and


Straw, Jack
Mr. Jon Owen Jones.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Coe, Sebastian


Aitken, Jonathan
Colvin, Michael


Alexander, Richard
Congdon, David


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Conway, Derek


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Amess, David
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Couchman, James


Ashby, David
Cran, James


Aspinwall, Jack
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Atkins, Robert
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Day, Stephen


Baldry, Tony
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Devlin, Tim


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bates, Michael
Dicks, Terry


Batiste, Spencer
Dorrell, Stephen


Bellingham, Henry
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bendall, Vivian
Dover, Den


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Duncan, Alan


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Body, Sir Richard
Dunn, Bob


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Durant, Sir Anthony


Booth, Hartley
Dykes, Hugh


Boswell, Tim
Eggar, Tim


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Elletson, Harold


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Bowden, Andrew
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Bowis, John
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Brandreth, Gyles
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Evennett, David


Bright, Graham
Faber, David


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Fabricant, Michael


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Budgen, Nicholas
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Burns, Simon
Fishburn, Dudley


Burt, Alistair
Forman, Nigel


Butcher, John
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Butler, Peter
Forth, Eric


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Carrington, Matthew
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Carttiss, Michael
French, Douglas


Cash, William
Gale, Roger


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Gallie, Phil


Chapman, Sydney
Gardiner, Sir George


Churchill, Mr
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Clappison, James
Garnier, Edward


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Gill, Christopher


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Gillan, Cheryl


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles





Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Gorst, John
Nicholls, Patrick


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Norris, Steve


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Grylls, Sir Michael
Oppenheim, Phillip


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Ottaway, Richard


Hague, William
Page, Richard


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Paice, James


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Patnick, Irvine


Hampson, Dr Keith
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hannam, Sir John
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hargreaves, Andrew
Pawsey, James


Harris, David
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Haselhurst, Alan
Pickles, Eric


Hawkins, Nick
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hayes, Jerry
Porter, David (Waveney)


Heald, Oliver
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hendry, Charles
Richards, Rod


Hicks, Robert
Riddick, Graham


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Robathan, Andrew


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Horam, John
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Sackville, Tom


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensboume)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Hunter, Andrew
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Shaw, David (Dover)


Jack, Michael
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Jenkin, Bernard
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Jessel, Toby
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Soames, Nicholas


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Key, Robert
Spink, Dr Robert


King, Rt Hon Tom
Spring, Richard


Kirkhope, Timothy
Sproat, Iain


Knapman, Roger
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Steen, Anthony


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Stephen, Michael


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Stern, Michael


Knox, Sir David
Stewart, Allan


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Streeter, Gary


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Sumberg, David


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Sweeney, Walter


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Sykes, John


Legg, Barry
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Leigh, Edward
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Lidington, David
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Lightbown, David
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Temple-Morris, Peter


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Lord, Michael
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Luff, Peter
Thumham, Peter


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Townend, John (Bridlington)


MacKay, Andrew
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Maclean, David
Tracey, Richard


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Tredinnick, David


Malone, Gerald
Trend, Michael


Mans, Keith
Trotter, Neville


Marlow, Tony
Twinn, Dr Ian


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Viggers, Peter


Mates, Michael
Walden, George


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Waller, Gary


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Ward, John


Merchant, Piers
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Mills, Iain
Waterson, Nigel


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Watts, John


Moate, Sir Roger
Wells, Bowen


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Whitney, Ray


Moss, Malcolm
Widdecombe, Ann






Wiggin, Sir Jerry
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Willetts, David



Wilshire, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Wilshire, Mark
Mr. Timothy Wood and


Yeo, Tim
Mr. James Arbuthnot.

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 23

POWERS OF COMMUNITY COUNCILS

'. —(1) A local authority may, by amending a scheme for the establishment of community councils under section 52 of the 1973 Act or in proposing a new scheme under section 22 of this Act, make provision for the exercise by a community council of any of its functions in the area covered by that community council.
(2) It shall be competent for a community council to undertake any activity which it reasonably considers to be in the best interests of the residents of the area covered by the community council, except to the extent that the function has been statutorily assigned to another body and has not been included in a scheme in pursuance of sub-section (1) above.
(3) It shall be competent for a community council to own heritable property in Scotland, and title to such property shall vest in the chairman, vice-chairman and clerk of the community council, ex officio and trustees.'.—[Mr. Wallace.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Wallace: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this we may discuss amendment No. 6, in clause 23, page 20, line 9, after 'scheme', insert
'and about the proposed number and powers of future community councils within their area.'.

Mr. Wallace: The purpose of the new clause is to stress the importance of community councils in the government of Scotland. As constituency Members, many of us know that they play an important role in the community, particularly in channelling the views of communities to their local Members. That is certainly the case in my constituency. Since the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, there have been developments, not only in rural areas, but in a number of urban areas, and very often areas where, without community councils, it would be difficult to focus on a community view.
The purpose of the new clause is not in any way intended to limit the purpose and functions of community councils set out in section 51(2) of the 1973 Act. Indeed, it seeks to take community councils further than that. It would recognise that functions, which, under statute, are primarily the function of the new unitary authorities, could be discharged by a community council. That already happens in some areas—for example, some recreational responsibilities and the upkeep of cemeteries, and that is a way in which community councils can raise additional income. The new clause also seeks to have a power of general competence to supplement the current statutory responsibilities of community councils. In that way, I would hope that they would become a much more potent power in their own areas and that they would have an increasing opportunity to make representations to a number of statutory bodies. The Government have acknowledged that 'community councils should at least be consulted on the decentralisation proposals in the Bill.
Amendment No. 6, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D.

Steel), proposes that there should also be statutory consultation with community councils on their number and their powers in a given area in future. As the scheme presently stands, while there is a general responsibility on the new councils to consult the public about the creation of community councils in their area, there is no statutory requirement to consult existing community councils. My right hon. Friend's amendment would strengthen that position and give existing community councils a role with regard to consultation when new schemes for community councils are proposed.
There are other areas, too, in which it is important that community councils are involved. There is to be a statutory requirement to be involved in planning decisions, licensing applications, and proposals that might come from the Forestry Commission and the new water and sewerage authorities. I hope that the steps taken in the Bill to extend the statutory right of consultation can be taken further.
We wish to clarify the position that community councils can hold heritable property. Why should not they buy premises if they have the funding to do so, or hold premises if they are bequeathed to them? Why should not the officers of a community council in some parts of the highlands be allowed to hold that property on a trust basis for the community rather than having it done by the central council, perhaps many hundreds of miles away? That is a simple point, but it would help to establish community councils more firmly in our scheme of arrangements for local government. They provide an important channel for the views of the communities that they represent. The new clause gives the House an opportunity to express its support for the network of community councils throughout Scotland.

Mr. Stewart: There will be a great deal of sympathy with the points made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). My first point, however, as I am sure he will recognise, is that not all community councils are capable of taking on an extended role.
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the excellent work in my constituency of many community councils, including Neilston, where I live, under its excellent chairman, Mr. Bill Reid. The role of community councils does vary, but we recognise, as does the hon. Gentleman, that local authorities must make the best use possible of the valuable resource that exists in the form of community councils. That is why we have given them, as the hon. Gentleman has recognised, new powers under the Bill: the statutory right to be consulted on draft decentralisation schemes; and the statutory right to be consulted on local planning issues.
Guidance will be issued to the new authorities, encouraging them to keep community councils informed about local licensing issues. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman, however, that we do not see community councils as an alternative mechanism for service delivery. That is why I cannot recommend the new clause to the House.
On the hon. Gentleman's proposals in subsections (2) and (3), there is no legal bar to community councils being involved in those areas. I can confirm that to the hon. Gentleman. I understand the point of the subsections, but suggest that, in the light of the advice that I have given to him, they are unnecessary.

Mr. Wallace: With regard to subsection (1), in which I refer to functions currently exercised by councils, does the Minister accept that there may be occasions when some of the functions are carried out by community councils, such as maintenance of cemeteries, and that that already happens quite legitimately?

Mr. Stewart: I agree. If the local council thinks and believes that that is an appropriate way of delivery of its services, that is perfectly in order.
On amendment No. 6, I have looked at the present legal position under the 1973 Act and clause 22 of the Bill. I believe that the provisions in the statute and the Bill adequately achieve the objective of ensuring that community councils have the opportunity to review their numbers and powers.
The hon. Gentleman asked me a specific question about community councils' ownership of property. I assure him that there is nothing to prevent them from owning property. I hope that that reassurance will be helpful to him. I do not think that there is any dispute in the House about the importance of community councils and the role that they can play. I think, however, that it is, and can be, variable and, in the context of the general good will towards community councils, which extends to all Members, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his new clause.

Mr. Wallace: The Minister has gone a long way in clarifying those points, and there is much common ground between us. I have one query, which, perhaps, could be looked at in another place. The Minister said that community councils would have the opportunity to comment on any proposals for new councils. We were looking for a statutory right to be consulted, but that is something that can be looked at before the Bill is completed.
With those comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 28

DUTY OF EDUCATION AUTHORITIES FOR EDUCATION OF UNDER FIVES

'(1) For section 1(2) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, there shall be substituted—
(2) The duty imposed on an education authority by subsection (1) above shall include a responsibility to secure that educational provision is available for pupils between the ages of three and five years, either by—

(a) the provision of nursery schools or nursery classes, according to guidelines issued by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Schools,

or, where the authority considers the provision of such schools or classes to be inexpedient,

(b) it shall be their duty to manage the provision of pre-five educational services in other establishments such as day nurseries, pre-school playgroups, independent nursery schools and daycare centres within their area, with specific responsibility for securing the quality of staff training, accommodation and resources according to guidelines issued by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Schools,
(c) any additional expenses incurred in pursuit of this duty shall be paid by the Secretary of State out of money provided by Parliament.".'.—[Mr. Wallace.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Wallace: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, we may take new clause 31—Statutory provision for nursery education—
'It shall be the duty of each local authority to draw up a scheme for the statutory provision of pre-five nursery places for all eligible children in that area and to specify a date for the implementation of such a scheme which will be submitted to the Secretary of State for final approval.'.

Mr. Wallace: It appears that, like London buses, Liberal Democrat new clauses and amendments come along in twos and threes after a long wait.
I think that it is generally agreed that there should be more nursery provision in Scotland and, indeed, throughout the United Kingdom. Last December, the Prime Minister stated his ambition
over time to move to universal nursery education".
Welcoming the publication of a statistical bulletin last month, the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), said:
The Government is committed to an extension of nursery and other pre-school provision in the public, private and voluntary sectors to allow a full range of options for all parents of pre-school children.
That motivation—which I suspect is shared by all parties—is well founded. In recent months, reports of United States studies have shown that those who have had a nursery education are less likely to be unemployed or to resort to crime in later life. Every £1 spent on nursery education today gives a sevenfold return in years to come.
Apart from the benefits to society as a whole, nursery education provides individual children with an important benefit, unlocking a potential that can develop and blossom in future years. It gives them a different type of educational experience from that provided by school—a type more appropriate to their age. It may well also give an early warning of learning difficulties or other behavioural problems, thus allowing such problems to be tackled more effectively when the child is younger. It can also lay the foundations for a sound education, contributing in due course—we hope—to higher levels of numeracy and literacy.
Although those are all worthy objectives, one of the problems is insufficient provision. In a written answer to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) on 3 May, the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) said:
It is estimated that 57,600 children under five years had places in local authority education or day care establishments at 31 March 1992."—[Official Report, 3 May 1994; Vol. 242, c. 489.]
That was only 18 per cent. of children under five. As for the levels of provision of state nursery education in the member states of the European Union, it appears that only Portugal has a lower level than the United Kingdom.

Mr. Foulkes: One cannot say more than that.

Mr. Wallace: The hon. Gentleman should not tempt me too much.
Provision in Scotland differs widely, from more than 51 per cent. in Lothian and Glasgow to only 16 per cent. in the Highland region and 3.3 per cent. in Argyll and Bute. There is no provision at all in the Western Isles: I thought that I had better add that information before the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) jumped to party conclusions. That suggests that access to the current range of nursery education is little more than a lottery, depending on where people live. From the earliest


age, children in Scotland are given unequal opportunities. The new clause would impose a statutory duty on local authorities throughout Scotland to address the problem.

Mr. Brian Wilson: I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman has said. Does he accept that, in the imperfect world in which we live, there is one certainty—that nursery education should be available to all children with special needs?

Mr. Wallace: I would endorse that without qualification. I should like provision to be universal, but if there is to be priority it should certainly be accorded to such children.
Nursery education is not the only means of serving young families and the educational needs of young children. There is a consensus that there should be a range of provision—playgroups, workplace nurseries, private child care and nursery arrangements and creches. All those have a contribution to make. Again, however, we need only look at different parts of Scotland to observe wide variations in provision, in terms of both availability and quality. The new clause addresses that aspect of pre-school education: it would give local authorities a statutory duty to manage the range of opportunities that should be available. I hope that, in that way, we could establish throughout Scotland the quality and availability of places for under-fives that are widely agreed to be necessary to get them off to a good start.
There's the rub—by which I mean finance. I quoted the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West earlier. He also said:
These ambitions … must be tempered by reality and can only be brought about as resources become available.
Some 20-odd years ago, Baroness Thatcher—then Secretary of State for Education—made a similar commitment, but did not will the resources. It is well known that my own party has not only made a commitment but been prepared to say that funds should be available to ensure that it is realised.

Mr. Dalyell: Earlier this month, many of us received hospitality from the Scottish Pre-School Play Association in the Members' Dining Room. One question was foremost in the minds of the association's members: what would happen to pre-school and nursery education if the regions ceased to exist? How will the Minister answer that question?

Mrs. Ewing: I support new clause 28. New clause 31, which stands in my name, has a similar intent.
I think it very sad that previous local government legislation removed the statutory duty on local authorities to provide nursery education. We are attempting to ensure that local authorities give priority to such education.
The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) referred to special needs. As you well know, Madam Deputy Speaker, and as other hon. Members also know, I have a special interest in the matter. I believe that the early recognition of problems that children may have could best be ensured by making statutory provision for nursery education in all our local authority areas and by providing qualified and trained personnel to support children with special needs.
My training in special needs was on how to deal with children who were perhaps in their teens. It has always seemed to me—I think that this has been borne out by subsequent research—that if a child's problems are spotted early enough, that child will not become one of the difficult teenagers with whom many teachers must now deal. I believe that, as well as providing nursery education—particularly for children with special needs—we should ensure that those working with them receive the necessary training and support.
Of course, I should like every child to have the chance of nursery education. Very young children are like little sponges, absorbing a good deal of information and education and then blossoming. I agree that youngsters should go to school as early as possible and that the necessary facilities should be provided. We must also recognise that we live in a changing society. In my area, and, I suspect, in many other parts of Scotland, women are now often the family breadwinners because of the lack of employment. Therefore, it is important to provide nursery education so that women can reach out to their careers and become breadwinners. At present, far too many are on low wages and cannot afford private nursery facilities. We must remedy that problem in general. Women have an important role to play and the support of nursery education is important to them in terms of their family life.
Money has been mentioned, and the Government always say that we cannot afford nursery education. Yet yesterday we saw a paper on defence saying that we must crash ahead and buy as many Trident nuclear warheads as possible, as fast as possible. Yet in Scotland we cannot provide nursery education for our children. I ask the Government in all seriousness, "What are your priorities—nuclear warheads or children?" We have already argued today about the need for a children Act for Scotland and the need to recognise the problems that children face, yet the Government's priority appears to be spending our money on the weapons of death.
Finally, I remind the Minister of what the Prime Minister wrote in his document "Access and Opportunity". He said:
Scotland has a long and proud tradition of academic excellence. It is on this firm foundation that the Government have sought to build their reforms of education and training. We have backed these reforms with greatly increased resources. As a result, parents and their children now have opportunities that were simply not available to previous generations of Scots.
Those words ring hollow.

Mr. Davidson: It would be appropriate if the Minister said that he intended to move towards universal pre-five provision rather than, as I suspect will happen as a result of the reorganisation, cuts in pre-five services. The effect of the reorganisation will be that local authorities will be obliged to cut all the services that are not statutory. In those circumstances, the pre-five service, which is an important part of the provision in many areas, will be reduced. The Government should now publicly recognise the importance of the value that children get from pre-five provision.
Many hon. Members have touched on the subject, but I shall concentrate on the support that pre-five services provide to parents, especially single parents. Over the past year or so, the Government have spent a great deal of time lambasting single parents for being a charge on the community as a whole. Many single parents desperately want to work, but cannot make child care arrangements that would enable them to do so.
In my area, nurseries have been provided as part of the Govan initiative project, which has enabled many single parents who would otherwise have been unable to do so to go to work and to support their families, thus avoiding being a charge on the community. The Government should consider the cost of the reorganisation and ask themselves whether the people of Scotland would prefer that money to be spent on providing universal pre-five services or on a reorganisation that nobody wants. I believe that Scottish people would rather have pre-five services for all the children who need them.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked about pre-school provision after the reorganisation. The funding allocated for nursery education in the local government financial settlement is based on the numbers of children of nursery age in each authority area. So provided that the new authorities give the same priority to nursery education as do the existing authorities, there is no reason why they should not continue the service. Clearly, maximum continuity is desirable.
The Scottish Office position is that we seek an extension of nursery and pre-school provision. Our long-term goal is a full range of options to satisfy the requirements of all parents of pre-school age children. We have a good track record, but our ambitions must be tempered by reality. They can be brought about only as resources become available. We have to report considerable achievement.
As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) will realise, since the Government came to power the number of children attending nursery schools has increased from 31,700 to more than 48,000—an increase of 52 per cent. Moreover, taking under-fives provision generally—I include nursery schools, day nurseries and pre-school playgroups in that grouping—authorities could, should they wish to target a particular age group, cater for almost 80 per cent. of the three and four-year-old population in Scotland.
The Government have declared their intention to explore ways of adding still further to the choice available to parents. We are determined that that will—

Mr. Wallace: rose—

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No doubt the hon. Gentleman wants to ask me about resources. Those are under consideration. Clearly it is a matter of top priority that the matter be considered most carefully.
We are determined to extend choice not only in the public but in the private and voluntary sectors. We have to guard against the danger that by favouring one element we may cause another to fall by the wayside. I know, for example, of the Scottish Pre-School Play Association's concerns that that should not happen.
New clause 28 refers to the report by Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools published on 21 February. That report supports our policy of choice and gives advice on the education of children under five in Scotland across the full range of provision. I believe that it will set the tone for pre-five education in the future and I commend its conclusions and recommendations to all parents and professionals involved in the education of young children.
The report provides a range of options, and does so with a specific intent. It leaves providers to decide what is most appropriate for their area. It would certainly not be appropriate to respond to that report by limiting the flexible

use of the advice given in the report by imposing a statutory provision that it must be followed regardless of particular circumstances, as the new clause would do.
Moreover, the effect of new clause 28 would be to make education authorities responsible for the management of educational services provided in establishments in the voluntary and independent sectors—in playgroups and private nursery schools. As I have said, our aim is for diversity and choice. New clause 28 recognises that that is a correct approach and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that. However, safeguards through the involvement of education authorities under the Children Act 1989 and through the inspectorate report mean that the position is well protected as things stand. I should also make it clear that new clause 28 is defective in that it talks in terms of "educational provision" without clarifying what that means.
New clause 31 is defective in that it does not specify the meaning of "statutory provision", of "pre-five nursery places" or of "eligible children". It would also place the duty on the local authority as a whole rather than on the education authority—a somewhat unusual proposition. More important is the fact that the purpose of new clause 31 is obscure. Arrangements for the provision of nursery education by education authorities are flexible and can be provided for all children whatever their age. As I said earlier, decisions on such matters are very much for authorities to make in the light of local circumstances. Why, then, should we provide only for "eligible children ", whatever that may mean, or for the intervention of the Secretary of State?
I find that strange—

Mr. Wilson: Surely the Minister must accept that there must be some statutory minimum, so will he specifically address the point that I raised? I am not arguing the case for children with special needs as against that of other children, but surely it must be right to make some provision in law for the children who are clearly most in need of pre-school education. Surely the Minister cannot maintain that there should be no statutory obligation to provide for any children at all.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman was present earlier, when I said that under the Education Act 1980 education authorities are required to
secure that there is made for their area adequate and efficient provision of school education and further education".

Mr. Wilson: School education?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: That is a matter of resources, as well as of the good will and intention of the authorities. A variety of different types of provision is presently on offer. As has been made clear by the Scottish Pre-School Play Association, it is in the public interest that the provision that they give should continue.

Mrs. Ewing: Will the Minister give way?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I was about to deal with the hon. Lady's new clause. She wished to involve the Secretary of State in local decisions. It is strange that she should want to do that, unless she believes that the Secretary of State knows as much as education authorities about the need for nursery schools in particular areas,


having regard to such considerations as the availability of other forms of pre-school provision, or the specific needs of certain parts of an authority's area.
For those reasons, I invite the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland to withdraw his new clause and the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) not to press hers.

Mrs. Ewing: I believe that in a nation the size of Scotland it should be perfectly possible to have a national strategy for nursery education, as my new clause suggests.
In the context of the provision for children with special needs in every community in Scotland, is the Minister satisfied that adequate provision is being made and resources provided to ensure that there are speech and occupational therapists and all the various groupings that are required to ensure that each child has his or her needs met? I am certainly not satisfied, and I suspect from the tone of the arguments of other Opposition Members that those needs are not being met anywhere in Scotland.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Social education needs are extremely important, and we have enormously expanded the resources for those with learning difficulties and acute learning difficulties. We acknowledge the importance of the support services in this connection and we expect that many authorities will wish to retain a comprehensive range of services within their own boundaries. In other cases, authorities may take advantage, for example, of the options for provision by joint arrangements with another authority, or through contracts with the voluntary sector.
It is clear, however, that the duty will remain with the education authority to whose area a child belongs. With regard to the size of authorities, Borders is a smaller authority than many, but it has an excellent record in that connection. We have not decided whether that will be the situation in the future in relation to children with special educational needs.

8pm

Mr. Wallace: We have had a useful opportunity to get the Government's position clearly on record, and we have had a lot of pious expectations and statements. Clearly, the point is that there are no resources, and authorities will not be able to deliver in anything like the way in which they ought to. I do not think that we will achieve anything by putting the matter to the vote, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Mrs. Ray Michie: I beg to move amendment No. 2, a new schedule—Area Tourist Boards—

Area of Tourist Board
Comprising area of


Shetland
Shetland Council.


Orkney
Orkney Council.


Western Isles
Western Isles Council.


Highland
Highland Council.


Grampian
City of Aberdeen Council;



Aberdeenshire Council;



Moray Council.


Tayside
Angus Council;



City of Dundee Council.


Fife
Fife Council.


Perthshire
Perthshire and Kinross Council.

Area of Tourist Board
Comprising area of


Argyll and Bute
Argyll and Bute Council.


Central
Clackmannan and Falkirk Council;



Dumbarton and Clydebank Council;



Stirling Council.


Glasgow and Clyde
City of Glasgow Council;


Valley
Inverclyde Council;



Renfrewshire Council;



East Renfrewshire Council: East



Dunbartonshire Council;



North Lanarkshire Council;



South Lanarkshire Council.


Edinburgh and Lothian
City of Edinburgh Council;



East and Mid Lothian Council;



West Lothian Council.


Scottish Borders
The Borders Council.


Ayrshire and Arran
East Ayrshire Council;



North Ayrshire Council;



South Ayrshire Council.


Dumfries and Galloway
Dumfries and Galloway Council.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment (a) to the amendment, leave out from "Glasgow and Clyde Valley" to "South Lanarkshire Council" and insert


'Glasgow
City of Glasgow Council;



Inverclude Council;



Renfrewshire Council;



East Renfrewshire Council;



East Dunbartonshire Council;


Clyde Valley
North Lanarkshire Council;



South Lanarkshire Council.'.


Amendment No. 4, in clause 167, page 112, line 31, leave out
'may be specified in the order'
and insert
'specified in Schedule (Area Tourist Boards) to this Act.'.
No. 191, in clause 171, page 117, line 32, leave out 'in their area'.

Mrs. Michie: I should say at the outset that I do not wish to prejudice any other colleague, particularly in the highlands, who may wish to see a change to the proposed tourist board arrangements. That includes the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), and the amendment in his name.
It was with considerable astonishment, and not a little dismay, that the announcement of the revised tourist board structure was greeted by myself and the people of Argyll and Bute. As we all know, there has been no member from the highlands and islands sitting on the committee and that has been a grave omission.
I am grateful for the opportunity now to move the amendment, for which I seek the support of the Minister and the House. The amendment would include in the Bill the list of area tourist boards as announced by the Secretary of State, but add to it one more, to be named Argyll and Bute, which would be coterminous with the new local authority area.
Previously in Argyll and Bute, there were four tourist boards, but it is now accepted that there should be one. But never in our wildest dreams—or is it nightmares?—was it considered possible that the Secretary of State would agree to Argyll and Bute being lumped in with Stirling,


Clackmannan, Falkirk, Dumbarton and Clydebank and being given the unwieldy name of the Loch Lomond, Stirling and Trossachs, Argyll and Bute tourist board. What a mess.
Granted, for the traveller seeking to discover Scotland, those are names to conjure with, but Clackmannan has little in common with Colonsay or Coll. In its original submission in response to the Scottish Office and Scottish tourist board consultation papers, a working party representing a wide range of tourist interests in Argyll and Bute clearly expressed the view that there must be one tourist board to cover the new local authority area. Therefore, there was deep frustration at the inability to have a meaningful dialogue on the matter. Consultation is a two-way process, but there has been none of that in this case.
Not only is Argyll and Bute one of most gloriously beautiful parts of Scotland—many hon. Members have spent happy and relaxing holidays there—but it is unique, because of the number of islands within its boundaries. There are some 550 islands, of which 28 are inhabited. It covers an area of 2,500 sq m and has a coast line longer in distance than that from Calais to Gibraltar.

Mr. Alex Salmond: May I endorse what the hon. Lady is saying about her constituency? She may remember that, when I was on holiday in her constituency, she came to hold a surgery in Colonsay. Although I did not avail myself of the opportunity—I spent the time on the golf course instead—that is a ringing endorsement of the hon. Lady's attitude towards her constituency.

Mrs. Michie: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I remember him visiting Colonsay and playing on the golf course—in among the sheep, as I recall.
By its nature, Argyll and Bute is crucially different from the urban conurbations with which the Bill would link it. It does not have the same day-visitor identity as Loch Lomond and Stirling castle. Its prime objective is to attract people more to resort destinations than to tourist areas. That relies not just on road and rail transport but on ferry and air travel to the islands and remote mainland havens. Surely the setting up of a new structure should always follow a decision on the purpose and the function. One decides what one wants to do and how one wants to do it and then one creates the structure.
The purpose and function in this case is to make tourism, which is a vital industry in Argyll and Bute, flourish and be successful. There is already a great deal of co-operation between the existing public and private bodies. It is only logical, therefore, that there should be one local authority, one enterprise company and one tourist board. A detailed study of the financial viability of such a board concluded that the potential grant-funding and the likely savings in expenditure would indeed make it financially viable. That confirmed an earlier report commissioned by the Argyll and Islands enterprise company.
If the amendment is not accepted, the downside is that there would be without a doubt a significant drop in tourism and in the associated income. There would be an increase in administration costs in an effort to maintain the identity of the area and—I know this for certain—there would be an upsurge of small groups seeking to promote their own particular corner. Many of those who are closely

involved in the work of the tourist boards would simply walk away because of a sense of isolation and non-compatibility with the Government's proposed huge board. To make a rural tourist board successful, those involved need to feel a sense of belonging and ownership.
The Secretary of State has already accepted the logic of having separate island tourist boards. Argyll and Bute is little different and has, over the years, built up a distinct industry. We must remember that it is subject to objective 1 status and will be eligible for EC funding. The European Community has identified tourism as a crucial growth area. It would be ironic if the Government, having turned Argyll and Bute into a single-tier local authority and removed it from Strathclyde, which the Prime Minister once unwisely described as a monstrosity, put it back into another huge area.
The amendment is supported by many organisations —Argyll and Bute district council, the Bute and Cowal tourist board, the West Highlands and Islands of Argyll tourist board, the local enterprise company—and by the chairman of the Scottish Confederation of Tourism. To achieve cohesion and a sense of purpose in promoting the distinctive, historical, cultural, social and economic features of the area, I urge the Minister and the House to take the sensible course and accept the logic and desirability of an Argyll and Bute tourist board.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) argued that we should reconsider the proposal for an Argyll-Stirling tourist board. The amendment would remove the flexibility of action that we intend in relation to future changes in tourist board area boundaries. We hope that it will not be necessary to alter those boundaries, but if, for whatever reason, change is required at some time in the future, we need the power to be able to achieve that change quickly and easily. Such a proposal is contained in the Bill—a change can be achieved by an order made under clauses 168 and 169—but if we agreed to the amendment, the Bill would have to be changed.
In its advice, the Scottish tourist board was strongly of the view that a board which comprised the new Argyll and Bute, Stirling, Clackmannan and Falkirk unitary authorities would be a major player in Scottish tourism. Contrary to what has been claimed, the STB believed that such a board would cover a marketable area with considerable synergy between mainland Argyll—[Hon. Members: "Synergy?"] Yes, synergy. There would be considerable synergy between mainland Argyll, rural Stirling and Clackmannan, with Loch Lomond, which I am sure the hon. Lady would agree is a destination of international renown, as the central feature.
I agree that the considerable market appeal, coupled with the gateway status of Stirling, will bring induced benefit to less visited areas such as Clackmannan, Cowal and Kintyre. It would also provide a stronger mainland area to service the remote and fragile Argyll islands. Of course, it would be expected to be financially viable.
Analysis of current funding shows that two separate areas would be financially weak in comparison with many of the other boards and underlines fears already experienced in Argyll and Bute that a separate board for the area could not compete or survive. I am aware of the report, to which the hon. Lady referred, on an Argyll and Bute tourist board. However, I am not convinced by its claims that an Argyll and Bute area tourist board would be


financially viable. We are aware that in the recent past the West Highlands and Argyll board has experienced financial difficulties and, as a consequence, has received substantial financial assistance from Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Scottish tourist board.
Against that background, Argyll and Bute district council's report strikes too optimistic a note. Some of its claims for the new Argyll and central Scotland area tourist board are completely misplaced. Therefore, with regret I cannot support the hon. Lady's amendment. I recommend accordingly that the House rejects it.

Mrs. Ray Michie: I am disappointed with the Minister's reply. He has a number of facts wrong and he has been misinformed. The Scottish tourist board was wrong to give the Scottish Office and the Minister that advice. It did so without consulting people in Argyll and Bute and without conducting any sort of dialogue or discussion with them. For the Minister to say that Stirling and Clackmannan is a gateway to Kintyre or Oban is just not credible.
I find it extraordinary that the Minister should maintain that an Argyll and Bute tourist board, which would include Helensburgh, would not be financially viable and that he is rejecting the report by the local enterprise company. I hope that he will reconsider the matter and that it will be considered again in another place. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 1

NEW LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREAS

Amendment proposed: No. 25, in page 124, line 8, leave out
'Banff and Buchan District Council'.—[Mr. Salmond.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 20, Noes 265.

Division No. 243]
[8.16 pm


AYES


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Dafis, Cynog
Rendel, David


Foster, Don (Bath)
Salmond, Alex


Harvey, Nick
Skinner, Dennis


Johnston, Sir Russell
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Tyler, Paul


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Wallace, James


Kirkwood, Archy



Llwyd, Elfyn
Tellers for the Ayes:


Lynne, Ms Liz
Mrs. Margaret Ewing and


Maclennan, Robert
Mr. Andrew Welsh.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Baldry, Tony


Alexander, Richard
Banks, Matthew (Southport)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Bates, Michael


Amess, David
Batiste, Spencer


Arbuthnot, James
Bellingham, Henry


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bendall, Vivian


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Ashby, David
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Aspinwall, Jack
Body, Sir Richard


Atkins, Robert
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Booth, Hartley


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Boswell, Tim





Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bowden, Andrew
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Bowis, John
Grylls, Sir Michael


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Brandreth, Gyles
Hague, William


Brazier, Julian
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Bright, Graham
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hannam, Sir John


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hargreaves, Andrew


Budgen, Nicholas
Harris, David


Burns, Simon
Haselhurst, Alan


Burt, Alistair
Hawkins, Nick


Butler, Peter
Hayes, Jerry


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Heald, Oliver


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carrington, Matthew
Hendry, Charles


Carttiss, Michael
Hicks, Robert


Cash, William
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Churchill, Mr
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Clappison, James
Horam, John


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Coe, Sebastian
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Colvin, Michael
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Congdon, David
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Conway, Derek
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hunter, Andrew


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Couchman, James
Jenkin, Bernard


Cran, James
Jessel, Toby


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Day, Stephen
Key, Robert


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Kirkhope, Timothy


Devlin, Tim
Knapman, Roger


Dickens, Geoffrey
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Dicks, Terry
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Dorrell, Stephen
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knox, Sir David


Dover, Den
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Duncan, Alan
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Dunn, Bob
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Durant, Sir Anthony
Legg, Barry


Elletson, Harold
Leigh, Edward


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lidington, David


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lightbown, David


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)


Evennett, David
Lord, Michael


Faber, David
Luff, Peter


Fabricant, Michael
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
MacKay, Andrew


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Maclean, David


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Fishburn, Dudley
Malone, Gerald


Forman, Nigel
Mans, Keith


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Marlow, Tony


Forth, Eric
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


French, Douglas
Mates, Michael


Fry, Sir Peter
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Gallie, Phil
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Gardiner, Sir George
Merchant, Piers


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Mills, Iain


Garnier, Edward
Moate, Sir Roger


Gill, Christopher
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Gillan, Cheryl
Moss, Malcolm


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Nicholls, Patrick


Gorst, John
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)






Norris, Steve
Stewart, Allan


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Streeter, Gary


Oppenheim, Phillip
Sumberg, David


Ottaway, Richard
Sweeney, Walter


Page, Richard
Sykes, John


Paice, James
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Patnick, Irvine
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Pawsey, James
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pickles, Eric
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Thumham, Peter


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Richards, Rod
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Riddick, Graham
Tracey, Richard


Robathan, Andrew
Tredinnick, David


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Trend, Michael


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Trotter, Neville


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Viggers, Peter


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Walden, George


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Waller, Gary


Sackville, Tom
Ward, John


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Waterson, Nigel


Shaw, David (Dover)
Watts, John


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wells, Bowen


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Whitney, Ray


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Widdecombe, Ann


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Willetts, David


Soames, Nicholas
Wilshire, David


Speed, Sir Keith
Wolfson, Mark


Spencer, Sir Derek
Wood, Timothy


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Yeo, Tim


Spink, Dr Robert
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Spring, Richard



Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Tellers for the Noes:


Steen, Anthony
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Stephen, Michael
Mr. Andrew Mitchell.


Stern, Michael

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendments made: No. 287, in page 124, column 2, leave out lines 13 to 15 and insert—

'(except first, polling district PDB; secondly, that part of polling district PDC lying to the east and south of a line commencing at the junction of unnamed roads at grid reference NO 3297 3106; then running northwest to the crossroads at Mains of Fowlis at grid reference NO 3247 3239; then running northeastward along the unnamed road between Mains of Fowlis and Liff to the western curtilage of the property known as Cater-Milly at grid reference NO 3300 3276; then running southward and eastward along the western and southern curtilages of the said property to the field boundary at grid reference NO 3308 3259; then continuing southeastward along the said field boundary and across the Liff Burn to the eastern perimeter of the woodland known as Gray Den at grid reference NO 3332 3239; then running north and east along the path running along the said eastern perimeter of Gray Den to its junction with the unnamed track between Liff and Mains of Gray at grid reference NO 3336 3273; then running north to the junction of the said track and the southern curtilage of the property known as Gray Cottage; then running northeastward along the southern curtilages of Gray Cottage, Learsmonth House and Woodend Cottages to the unnamed road between Liff and the Royal Dundee Liff Hospital then running eastward along the said road past the northern perimeter of the said Hospital to the road junction at grid

reference NO 3537 3276; that part of polling district ADA lying to the east and south of a line commencing at a point on the A923 road at grid reference NO 3560 3378; then running north along the eastern curtilage of No 100 Coupar Angus Road and northwestwards along the northern curtilages of Nos 100 to 122 Coupar Angus Road to the eastern perimeter of Blairfield Road; then northwards along the said eastern perimeter to the field boundary at grid reference NO 3533 3436; then northeastwards along the said field boundary to its junction with Templeton Road at grid reference NO 3577 3455; thirdly, that part of polling district ADC lying to the east and south of a line commencing at grid reference NO 3660 3474 then running northward to the northwest corner of Baldragon Wood at grid reference NO 3658 3496; then running eastward along the northern perimeter of the said wood and continuing along the field boundary to grid reference NO 3725 3491; fourthly, those parts of polling districts ADE and ADF lying to the east and south of a line commencing on the southern boundary of polling district ADE on the A929(T) road at grid reference NO 4166 3458; then running northwards along the said A929(T) road to its junction with the unnamed road leading to South Powrie; then running southeastwards along the said unnamed road to South Powrie; then eastwards from South Powrie along the unnamed road leading to Barns of Wedderburn as far as the northwestern curtilage of that property at grid reference NO 4347 3469; then running southwestwards and southeastwards along the northwestern and southwestern perimeter of the said property to the point where it meets the unnamed road leading to Fintry at grid reference NO 4347 3458; then running southwestwards along the said unnamed road to the southern boundary of polling district ADF at the road junction at grid reference NO 4352 3466; and fifthly, those parts of polling districts EDN, EDQ, PDA, WED, WEE, WEF and WEG lying within its boundary).'.

No. 288, in page 124, line 21, column 2, leave out from 'DB78' to end of line 39 and insert—

'lying north of a line commencing at grid reference NS 3464 8256; then running northeastwards to the field corner at grid reference NS 3469 8264; then southeastwards to the field junction at grid reference NS 3608 8198; then northeastwards to the field junction at grid reference NS 3658 8242; then northwestwards to the junction of the field boundary and an unnamed burn at grid reference NS 3613 8269; then generally northeastwards along the course of the said burn to where it meets Loch Lomond at grid reference NS 3743 8336; then due northeastwards from that point to the eastern boundary of the said polling district in Loch Lomond.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Amendment proposed: No 42, in page 124, leave out lines 40 to 44 and insert—

'Ayrshire
Kilmarnock and Loudoun District Council;



Cumnock and Doon Valley District Council;



Cunninghame District Council;



Kyle and Carrick District Council.'. — [Mr. McLeish.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 232, Noes 266.

Division No. 244
[8.29 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Eagle, Ms Angela


Ainger, Nick
Eastham, Ken


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Enright, Derek


Allen, Graham
Etherington, Bill


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Fatchett, Derek


Armstrong, Hilary
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Ashton, Joe
Fisher, Mark


Austin-Walker, John
Flynn, Paul


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Barnes, Harry
Foster, Don (Bath)


Barron, Kevin
Foulkes, George


Battle, John
Fraser, John


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Fyfe, Maria


Bell, Stuart
Galloway, George


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Gapes, Mike


Bennett, Andrew F.
Garrett, John


Benton, Joe
George, Bruce


Bermingham, Gerald
Gerrard, Neil


Berry, Roger
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Betts, Clive
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Blair, Tony
Godsiff, Roger


Blunkett, David
Golding, Mrs Llin


Boyes, Roland
Gordon, Mildred


Bradley, Keith
Graham, Thomas


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Burden, Richard
Grocott, Bruce


Byers, Stephen
Gunnell, John


Caborn, Richard
Hain, Peter


Callaghan, Jim
Hall, Mike


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hanson, David


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hardy, Peter


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Harvey, Nick


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Henderson, Doug


Canavan, Dennis
Heppell, John


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hinchliffe, David


Clapham, Michael
Hoey, Kate


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Home Robertson, John


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hood, Jimmy


Clelland, David
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Coffey, Ann
Hoyle, Doug


Connarty, Michael
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Corston, Ms Jean
Hutton, John


Cousins, Jim
Ingram, Adam


Cummings, John
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Jamieson, David


Dalyell, Tam
Janner, Greville


Darling, Alistair
Johnston, Sir Russell


Davidson, Ian
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Dixon, Don
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dobson, Frank
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Donohoe, Brian H.
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Dowd, Jim
Khabra, Piara S.


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Kilfoyle, Peter





Kirkwood, Archy
Primarolo, Dawn


Lewis, Terry
Quin, Ms Joyce


Livingstone, Ken
Radice, Giles


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Raynsford, Nick


Loyden, Eddie
Redmond, Martin


Lynne, Ms Liz
Reid, Dr John


McAllion, John
Rendel, David


McAvoy, Thomas
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


McCartney, Ian
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Macdonald, Calum
Rogers, Allan


McFall, John
Rooker, Jeff


McKelvey, William
Rooney, Terry


McLeish, Henry
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Maclennan, Robert
Rowlands, Ted


McMaster, Gordon
Ruddock, Joan


McNamara, Kevin
Sedgemore, Brian


MacShane, Denis
Sheerman, Barry


McWilliam, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Madden, Max
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Short, Clare


Mandelson, Peter
Simpson, Alan


Marek, Dr John
Skinner, Dennis


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Martlew, Eric
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Maxton, John
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Meale, Alan
Soley, Clive


Michael, Alun
Spearing, Nigel


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Spellar, John


Milburn, Alan
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Miller, Andrew
Stevenson, George


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Stott, Roger


Morley, Elliot
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Mowlam, Marjorie
Tyler, Paul


Mudie, George
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Mullin, Chris
Wallace, James


Murphy, Paul
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wareing, Robert N


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Watson, Mike


O'Hara, Edward
Wicks, Malcolm


Olner, William
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


O'Neill, Martin
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wilson, Brian


Parry, Robert
Winnick, David


Patchett, Terry
Wise, Audrey


Pendry, Tom
Wortnington, Tony


Pickthall, Colin
Wray, Jimmy


Pike, Peter L.
Wright, Dr Tony


Pope, Greg
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)



Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Mr. Jon Owen Jones and


Prescott, John
Mr. Eric Illsley.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Alexander, Richard
Booth, Hartley


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Boswell, Tim


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)


Amess, David
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia


Arbuthnot, James
Bowden, Andrew


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bowis, John


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes


Ashby, David
Brandreth, Gyles


Aspinwall, Jack
Brazier, Julian


Atkins, Robert
Bright, Graham


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Browning, Mrs. Angela


Baldry, Tony
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Budgen, Nicholas


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Burns, Simon


Bates, Michael
Burt, Alistair


Batiste, Spencer
Butcher, John


Bellingham, Henry
Butler, Peter


Bendall, Vivian
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Carrington, Matthew


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Carttiss, Michael


Body, Sir Richard
Cash, William






Chapman, Sydney
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Churchill, Mr
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Clappison, James
Horam, John


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Coe, Sebastian
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Colvin, Michael
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Congdon, David
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Conway, Derek
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hunter, Andrew


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Couchman, James
Jenkin, Bernard


Cran, James
Jessel, Toby


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Day, Stephen
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Key, Robert


Devlin, Tim
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dickens, Geoffrey
Knapman, Roger


Dicks, Terry
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Dover, Den
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Duncan, Alan
Knox, Sir David


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Dunn, Bob
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Durant, Sir Anthony
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Elletson, Harold
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Legg, Barry


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Leigh, Edward


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lidington, David


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)


Evennett, David
Lord, Michael


Faber, David
Luff, Peter


Fabricant, Michael
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
MacKay, Andrew


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Maclean, David


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Fishburn, Dudley
Malone, Gerald


Forman, Nigel
Mans, Keith


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Marlow, Tony


Forth, Eric
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Mates, Michael


French, Douglas
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Fry, Sir Peter
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Gale, Roger
Merchant, Piers


Gallie, Phil
Mills, Iain


Gardiner, Sir George
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Moate, Sir Roger


Garnier, Edward
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Gill, Christopher
Moss, Malcolm


Gillan, Cheryl
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Nicholls, Patrick


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Gorst, John
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Norris, Steve


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Ottaway, Richard


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Page, Richard


Hague, William
Paice, James


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Patnick, Irvine


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hampson, Dr Keith
Pawsey, James


Hannam, Sir John
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hargreaves, Andrew
Pickles, Eric


Harris, David
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Haselhurst, Alan
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hawkins, Nick
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hayes, Jerry
Richards, Rod


Heald, Oliver
Riddick, Graham


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Robathan, Andrew


Hendry, Charles
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Hicks, Robert
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)





Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Sackville, Tom
Thumham, Peter


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Shaw, David (Dover)
Tracey, Richard


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Tredlnnick, David


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Trend, Michael


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Trotter, Neville


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Twinn, Dr Ian


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Viggers, Peter


Soames, Nicholas
Walden, George


Speed, Sir Keith
Waller, Gary


Spencer, Sir Derek
Ward, John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Spink, Dr Robert
Waterson, Nigel


Spring, Richard
Watts, John


Sproat, Iain
Wells, Bowen


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Whitney, Ray


Steen, Anthony
Widdecombe, Ann


Stephen, Michael
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Stern, Michael
Willetts, David


Stewart, Allan
Wilshire, David


Streeter, Gary
Wolfson, Mark


Sumberg, David
Yeo, Tim


Sweeney, Walter
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Sykes, John



Tapsell, Sir Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Mr. Timothy Wood and


Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Mr. David Lightbown.


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendments made: No. 289, in page 124, line 46,column 1, leave out 'and Falkirk'.

No. 290, in page 124, line 46, column 2, leave out from 'Council' to end of line 49.

No. 292, in page 125, line 12, column 2, leave out 'and Mearns and' and insert 'or'.

'Falkirk
Falkirk District Council'

No. 293, in page 125, line 15, column 2, leave out from
'Council' to end of line 18.

'East Lothian
East Lothian District Council.


Midlothian
Midlothian District Council.

No. 295, in page 125, line 45, column 2, at end insert—

'and that part of polling district PDA lying to the south of a line commencing at a point adjacent to Stan Inn Farm at grid reference NO 3309 3051 on the A90 road; then running eastward along the said road to the junction at grid reference NO 3462 3079'.

No. 296, in page 125, line 46, column 2, leave out from 'In council' to the end of line 37 on page 126 and insert—

'; Strathclyde electoral division 79 (Barrhead).'

No. 297, in page 126, line 38, column 2, leave out from 'except' to the end of the line 39 and insert—

'Strathclyde electoral division 79 (Barrhead).'

— [Mr.Stewart.]

Clause 2

CONSTITUTION OF COUNCILS

Amendment made: No. 48, in page 2, line 21, leave out 'chairman' and insert 'convener'.—[Mr. Stewart.]

Clause 4

CHAIRMAN AND VICE-CHAIRMAN

Amendments made: No. 49, in page 3, line 2, leave out 'chairman' and insert 'convener'.

No. 50, in page 3, line 3, leave out 'vice-chairman' and insert 'depute convener'.

No. 51, in page 3, line 9, leave out 'chairman and vice-chairman' and insert 'convener and depute convener'.

No. 52, in page 3, line 10, leave out 'chairman' and insert 'convener'.

No. 53, in page 3, line 12, leave out 'chairman' and insert 'convener'.

No. 54, in page 3, line 15, leave out 'chairman or vice-chairman' and insert 'convener or depute convener'.

No. 55, in page 3, line 18, leave out 'chairman' and insert 'convener'.

No. 56, in page 3, line 21, leave out 'vice-chairman' and insert 'depute convener'.

No. 57, in page 3, line 23, leave out 'chairman' and insert 'convener'.

No. 173, in page 3, line 24, after 'shall' insert
with effect from 1st April 1996,'.

No. 58, in page 3, line 25, leave out 'chairman' and insert 'convener'.

No. 59, in page 3, line 27, leave out 'chairman and vice-chairman' and insert 'convener and depute convener'.—[Mr.Stewart.]

Clause 6

DATE OF ELECTIONS

Amendments made: No. 174, in page 4, line 8, after 'preceding' insert
'the year or, in the case of an order affecting more than one year,'.

No. 175, in page 4, line 9, at end insert—
'(1A) An order made under subsection (1)(b) above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.—[Mr.Stewart.]

Schedule 2

ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW LOCAL AUTHORITIES

Amendments made: No. 113, in page 128, line 6, leave out 'chairman' and insert 'convener'.

No. 114, in page 128, line 10, leave out 'chairman', in both places where it occurs, and insert 'convener'.

No. 115, in page 128, line 26, leave out 'chairman' and insert 'convener'.

No. 116, in page 128, line 26, leave out 'vice-chairman' and insert 'depute convener'.

No. 117, in page 128, line 29, leave out 'chairman' and insert 'convener'.

No. 118, in page 128, line 30, leave out 'chairman' and insert 'convener'.

No. 119, in page 128, line 31, leave out 'chairman' and insert 'convener'.—[Mr. Stewart.]

Clause 8

TRANSFER OF EMPLOYEES

Amendments made: No. 176, in page 4, line 19, at beginning insert
'Subject to the provisions of this section,'.

No. 177, in page 4, leave out lines 31 to 33 and insert—
'(2A) Each regional and district council shall, in accordance with the provisions of an order made under this section, prepare a scheme in relation to the transfer under or by virtue of this Act of their employees.'.

No. 178, in page 4, line 34, leave out '(2)(c)' and insert '(2A)'.

No. 179, in page 4, line 37, at end insert—
'( ) The Secretary of State shall by order under this section provide for the transfer of all fire and police personnel employed by an existing local authority for the purposes of a fire brigade or police force to the new authority which will, after 1st April 1996, have responsibility as respects that brigade or force.'.

No. 180, in page 4, line 44, leave out 'and'.

No. 181, in page 4, line 44, at end insert—
' "fire personnel" means any persons employed by an existing local authority for the sole purpose of assisting a fire brigade maintained by that authority;'.

No. 182, in page 5, line 3, at end insert 'and
police personnel" means any persons employed by virtue of section 9 (employees other than constables) of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967:.-[Mr.Stewart.]

Clause 11

REMUNERATION OF EMPLOYEES OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES

Amendments made: No. 60, in page 6, line 18, after '(b)' insert
'by order made by statutory instrument'.

No. 61, in page 6, line 21, at end insert—
'() An order under subsection (1)(b) above—

(a) may make provision as to the constitution and membership of the body established;
(b) may include provision as to the employment of staff and the remuneration and superannuation of the members and staff of the body; and
(c) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Stewart.]

Clause 13

COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OF OFFICE OR DIMINUTION OF EMOLUMENTS

Amendment made: No. 62, in page 8, line 46, leave out 'or under' and insert
',under or by virtue of'.—[Mr. Stewart.]

Clause 19

PROPERTY COMMISSION

Amendments made: No. 63, in page 15, line 45, leave out '(A)'.

No. 64, in page 15, leave out from line 47 to the end of line 2 on page 16.—[Mr. Stewart.]

Clause 20

JOINT COMMITTEES AND JOINT BOARDS

Amendment made: No. 65, in page 16, line 40, after 'shall' insert
'be in terms agreed by the relevant authorities and shall'.—[Mr. Stewart.]

Clause 23

DUTY TO PREPARE DECENTRALISATION SCHEMES

Amendment made: No. 6, in page 20, after 'scheme', insert
'and about the proposed number and powers of future community councils within their area.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 24

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS: FINANCE

Amendment made: No. 67, in page 20, line 38, after 'may' insert
', after consulting such associations of local authorities as appear to him to be appropriate,'.
—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 26

VALUATION LISTS

Amendment made: No. 280, in page 21, line 46, after 'Galloway,' insert 'Fife,'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 27

VALUATION AREAS AND AUTHORITIES AND APPOINTMENT OF ASSESSORS ETC.

Amendment made: No. 68, in page 23, leave out lines 31 to 34.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 28

VALUATION ROLLS

Amendment made: No. 281, in page 23, line 43, after 'Galloway,' insert 'Fife,'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Schedule 4

AMENDMENTS OF THE 1972 ACT

Amendments made: No. 304, in page 134, line 26, leave out from 'words' to end of line and insert
'from "any", where it first occurs, to "may" substitute "any local authority may";'.

No. 223, in page 134, line 28, leave out from 'words' to end of line 29 and insert
'from "of the", where they thirdly occur, to the end substitute "of the area of the local authority"'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 34

REORGANISATION OF POLICE AREAS

Amendments made: No. 282, in page 29, line 2 [Clause 34], leave out 'and'.

No. 283, in page 29, line 4, column 2, leave out 'and' and insert 'Lothian,'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 36

FIRE SERVICES

Amendments made: No. 284, in page 31, line 22 [Clause 36], leave out 'and'.

No. 285, in page 31, line 28, leave out 'and' and insert 'Lothian,'.

No. 70, in page 32, line 8, at end insert—
'( ) Before making an administration scheme under this section the Secretary of State shall—

(a) consult such fire authorities as appear to him to be affected by the scheme; and
(b) where any such authority submit objections to the scheme, inform that authority in writing whether he accepts the objections and, if he does not, why he does not.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 40

ESTABLISHMENT ETC. OF STRATHCLYDE PASSENGER TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

Amendments made: No. 183, in page 38, line 46, at end insert—
'( ) Before making an order under subsection (4) above the Secretary of State shall consult such persons or bodies as he thinks fit.'.

No. 286, in page 39, line 8, at end insert—
'( ) section 97A (studies for improving economy etc. in services);
( ) section 97B (furnishing of information and documents to Commission);'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 43

GUIDANCE AS TO EXERCISE OF TRAFFIC POWERS

Amendments made: No. 71, in page 41, line 17, after 'consult' insert
'the Common Services Agency for the Scottish Health Service in respect of the provision by them of an ambulance service by virtue of the National Health Service (Functions of the Common Services Agency) (Scotland) Order 1974 and'.

No. 72, in page 41, line 18, leave out 'officers of police;' and insert
'constables of the police forces maintained;
( ) the fire authorities (within the meaning of the Fire Services Act 1947);'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 44

RESTRICTION ON ORDER-MAKING POWERS OF EXISTING AUTHORITIES

Amendments made: No. 73, in page 42, line 28, leave out 'relevant'.

No. 74, in page 42, leave out lines 42 and 43.

No. 75, in page 42, line 46, at end insert—
'( ) Where—

(a) a regional council have sought the consent of a successor authority to the making of a proposed order to which this section applies; and
(b) the successor authority have failed, within 6 weeks of such consent being sought, to consent,

the successor authority shall be deemed to have given such consent.
( ) In this section "successor authority" means any council constituted under section 2 of this Act (other than the councils for Orkney Islands, Shetland Islands and Western Isles) in whose area the proposed order will have effect.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 50

REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS, DEATHS AND MARRIAGES

Amendment made: No. 76, in page 44, line 46, leave out from 'in' to
'; and' in line 47 and insert 'subsection (1), for the words from "the director" to "person" substitute "such officer of the local authority";


( ) in subsection (3), for the words from "the director" to "authority" substitute "such officer of the local authority as may be appointed for the purpose by the local authority"'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 54

RESTRICTION ON DISPOSAL OF ASSETS AND ENTERING INTO CONTRACTS BY EXISTING AUTHORITIES

Amendments made: No. 77, in page 47, line 13, leave out '£100,000' and insert £250,000'.

No. 78, in page 47, line 28, leave out from 'disposal' to
'is' in line 29 and insert 'of relevant property (within the meaning assigned by paragraph (b) of section 90(1) of this Act) or proposed contract in so far as it relates to functions mentioned in that paragraph'.——[Mr. Stewart.]

Clause 57

FURTHER PROVISION AS TO DISCHARGE OF FUNCTIONS BY AUTHORITIES

Amendment made: No. 79, in page 50, leave out lines 33 to 36.—[Mr. Stewart.]

Clause 58

LOCAL ACTS AND INSTRUMENTS

Amendments made: No. 80, in page 52, line 48, at end insert
'or a provision of an instrument made under any such Act;'.
No. 81, in page 53, line 7, leave out from 'instrument' to
'any' in line 8 and insert 'in so far as that enactment or instrument relates to functions mentioned in section 90(1)(b) of this Act nor'.—[Mr. Stewart.]

Schedule 7

CONSITUTION AND PROCEEDINGS ETC. OF A NEW WATER AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY

Amendment proposed: No. 10, in page 138, leave out lines 18 to 23 and insert—
'3. The members of an authority shall be—

(a) such number of elected councillors as the councils in the area covered by the authority shall by agreement determine and shall be appointed by those councils (in this schedule referred to as the "appointing authorities"),
(b) the person who is for the time being the chief executive of the authority.'.—[Mr. McLeish.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 238, Noes 252.

Division No. 245]
[8.45 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Benton, Joe


Adams, Mrs Irene
Bermingham, Gerald


Ainger, Nick
Berry, Roger


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Betts, Clive


Allen, Graham
Blair, Tony


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Blunkett, David


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Boyes, Roland


Armstrong, Hilary
Bradley, Keith


Ashton, Joe
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Austin-Walker, John
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)


Barnes, Harry
Burden, Richard


Barron, Kevin
Byers, Stephen


Battle, John
Caborn, Richard


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Callaghan, Jim


Bell, Stuart
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Bennett, Andrew F.
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)





Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hutton, John


Canavan, Dennis
Ingram, Adam


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Jamieson, David


Clapham, Michael
Johnston, Sir Russell


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Clelland, David
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Coffey, Ann
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Connarty, Michael
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Khabra, Piara S.


Corbyn, Jeremy
Kilfoyle, Peter


Corston, Ms Jean
Kirkwood, Archy


Cousins, Jim
Lewis, Terry


Cummings, John
Livingstone, Ken


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Dafis, Cynog
Llwyd, Elfyn


Dalyell, Tam
Loyden, Eddie


Darling, Alistair
Lynne, Ms Liz


Davidson, Ian
McAllion, John


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
McAvoy, Thomas


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
McCartney, Ian


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
Macdonald, Calum


Dixon, Don
McFall, John


Dobson, Frank
McKelvey, William


Donohoe, Brian H.
McLeish, Henry


Dowd, Jim
Maclennan, Robert


Dunnachie, Jimmy
McMaster, Gordon


Eagle, Ms Angela
McNamara, Kevin


Eastham, Ken
MacShane, Denis


Enright, Derek
McWilliam, John


Etherington, Bill
Madden, Max


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Marek, Dr John


Fatchett, Derek
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Martlew, Eric


Fisher, Mark
Maxton, John


Flynn, Paul
Meale, Alan


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Michael, Alun


Foster, Don (Bath)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Foulkes, George
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Fraser, John
Milburn, Alan


Fyfe, Maria
Miller, Andrew


Galloway, George
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Gapes, Mike
Morley, Elliot


Garrett, John
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


George, Bruce
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Gerrard, Neil
Mowlam, Marjorie


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Mudie, George


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Mullin, Chris


Godsiff, Roger
Murphy, Paul


Golding, Mrs Llin
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Gordon, Mildred
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Graham, Thomas
O'Hara, Edward


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Olner, William


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
O'Neill, Martin


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Grocott, Bruce
Parry, Robert


Gunnell, John
Patchett, Terry


Hain, Peter
Pendry, Tom


Hall, Mike
Pickthall, Colin


Hanson, David
Pike, Peter L.


Hardy, Peter
Pope, Greg


Harvey, Nick
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Henderson, Doug
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Heppell, John
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Prescott, John


Hinchliffe, David
Primarolo, Dawn


Hoey, Kate
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hogg, Norman (Cumbemauld)
Radice, Giles


Home Robertson, John
Raynsford, Nick


Hood, Jimmy
Redmond, Martin


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Reid, Dr John


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Rendel, David


Hoyle, Doug
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Rogers, Allan


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Rooker, Jeff






Rooney, Terry
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Rowlands, Ted
Tyler, Paul


Ruddock, Joan
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Salmond, Alex
Wallace, James


Sedgemore, Brian
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Sheerman, Barry
Wareing, Robert N


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Watson, Mike


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Welsh, Andrew


Short, Clare
Wicks, Malcolm


Simpson, Alan
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Skinner, Dennis
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Wilson, Brian


Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Winnick, David


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Wise, Audrey


Soley, Clive
Worthington, Tony


Spearing, Nigel
Wray, Jimmy


Spellar, John
Wright, Dr Tony


Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Stevenson, George



Stott, Roger
Tellers for the Ayes:


Strang, Dr. Gavin
Mr. Eric Illsley and


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Mr. Jon Owen Jones.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Conway, Derek


Alexander, Richard
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Amess, David
Couchman, James


Arbuthnot, James
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Ashby, David
Day, Stephen


Aspinwall, Jack
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Atkins, Robert
Devlin, Tim


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Dicks, Terry


Baldry, Tony
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Dover, Den


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Duncan, Alan


Bates, Michael
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Batiste, Spencer
Dunn, Bob


Bellingham, Henry
Durant, Sir Anthony


Bendall, Vivian
Elletson, Harold


Beresford, Sir Paul
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Body, Sir Richard
Evennett, David


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fabricant, Michael


Booth, Hartley
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Boswell, Tim
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Fishburn, Dudley


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Forman, Nigel


Bowden, Andrew
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bowis, John
Forth, Eric


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Brandreth, Gyles
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Brazier, Julian
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Bright, Graham
Fry, Sir Peter


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Gale, Roger


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Gardiner, Sir George


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Budgen, Nicholas
Garnier, Edward


Burns, Simon
Gill, Christopher


Burt, Alistair
Gillan, Cheryl


Butcher, John
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Butler, Peter
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Gorst, John


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Carrington, Matthew
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Cash, William
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Chapman, Sydney
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Churchill, Mr
Grylls, Sir Michael


Clappison, James
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hague, William


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Coe, Sebastian
Hannam, Sir John


Congdon, David
Hargreaves, Andrew





Harris, David
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Haselhurst, Alan
Pawsey, James


Hawkins, Nick
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hayes, Jerry
Pickles, Eric


Heald, Oliver
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hendry, Charles
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hicks, Robert
Richards, Rod


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Riddick, Graham


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Robathan, Andrew


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Horam, John
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Sackville, Tom


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hunter, Andrew
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Jenkin, Bernard
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Jessel, Toby
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Soames, Nicholas


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Speed, Sir Keith


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Key, Robert
Spink, Dr Robert


Kirkhope, Timothy
Spring, Richard


Knapman, Roger
Sproat, Iain


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Steen, Anthony


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Stephen, Michael


Knox, Sir David
Stern, Michael


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Stewart, Allan


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Streeter, Gary


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Sumberg, David


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Sweeney, Walter


Legg, Barry
Sykes, John


Leigh, Edward
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Lidington, David
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Lightbown, David
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Lord, Michael
Temple-Morris, Peter


Luff, Peter
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Maclean, David
Thumham, Peter


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Malone, Gerald
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Mans, Keith
Tracey, Richard


Marlow, Tony
Tredinnick, David


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Trend, Michael


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Trotter, Neville


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mates, Michael
Viggers, Peter


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Walden, George


Merchant, Piers
Waller, Gary


Mills, Iain
Ward, John


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Moate, Sir Roger
Waterson, Nigel


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Watts, John


Moss, Malcolm
Wells, Bowen


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Widdecombe, Ann


Nicholls, Patrick
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Willetts, David


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Wilshire, David


Norris, Steve
Wolfson, Mark


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Yeo, Tim


Oppenheim, Phillip
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Ottaway, Richard



Page, Richard
Tellers for the Noes:


Paice, James
Mr. Andrew MacKay and


Patnick, Irvine
Mr. Timothy Wood.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 64

GENERAL DUTIES OF SECRETARY OF STATE AND OF NEW AUTHORITIES

Amendment made: No. 82, in page 56, line 2, clause 64, after 'access' insert '(including access for recreational purposes)'—[Lord James Douglas Hamilton.]

Clause 65

CODES OF PRACTICE FOR NEW WATER AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITIES

Amendment made: No. 184, in page 56, line 42, at end add—
'( ) The authority shall take such steps as appear to them appropriate to inform customers and potential customers of the contents for the time being of their code approved by virtue of this section.'—[Mr. Stewart.]

Clause 74

MAXIMUM CHARGES FOR SERVICES PROVIDED WITH HELP OF NEW AUTHORITY

Amendments made: No. 83, in page 60, line 12, clause 74, leave out 'water supplies or sewerage services provided to' and insert
'the supply of water to, the provision of sewerage to or the disposal of sewage for';

No. 84, in page 60, line 15, leave out 'supplies or sewerage services are provided to' and insert
'is supplied to, sewerage provided to, or sewage disposed of for';

No. 85, in page 60, line 20, leave out 'services' and insert
'which is, or facilities for the disposal of sewage which are,';

No. 86, in page 60, line 26, leave out 'services' and insert
',or with facilities for the disposal of sewage,';

No. 87, in page 60, line 27, leave out 'those services' and insert 'the sewerage or facilities';

No. 88, in page 60, line 28, leave out 'services' and insert 'or of such facilities'—[Mr. Stewart.]

Clause 77

LIABILITY OF OCCUPIERS ETC. FOR CHARGES

Amendments made: No. 89, in page 62, line 22, leave out 'sewerage services' and insert
'the provision of sewerage, and the disposal of sewage,';

No. 90, in page 62, line 23, leave out 'provided to' and insert
'provision to, or as disposal for,';

No. 91, in page 62, line 31, at end insert
'; and such supply of water, provision of sewerage or disposal of sewage are referred to in subsection (2) below as "relevant services".';

No. 92, in page 62, line 35, after 'for' insert 'relevant' —[Mr. Stewart.]

Clause 79

POWER TO DEMAND AND RECOVER CHARGES NOT TO AFFECT DUTY TO MAINTAIN DOMESTIC WATER SUPPLY ETC.

Amendment made: No. 93, in page 64, line 20, leave out 'Subsection (1)(b) of section 73 of this Act is' and insert'Subsections (1)(b) of section 73 and (1), (3) and (4) of section 78 of this Act are'—[Mr. Stewart.]

Clause 81

ARREARS OF CHARGES: RESTRICTIONS ON VOTING

Amendment made: No. 94, in page 65, line 25, at end insert—
'(5) In subsection (1) above, "joint committee" has the meaning given by section 235(1) of the 1973 Act.'—[Mr. Stewart.]

Clause 92

PREPARATIONS FOR TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS ETC. TO NEW AUTHORITIES

Amendment made: No. 95, in page 74, line 34, leave out 'in Chapter 2 of Part I' and insert 'by virtue of section 96' —[Mr. Stewart.]

Clause 96

STAFF: APPLICATION OF CHAPTER 2 OF PART I ETC.

Amendments made: No. 185, in page 76, line 10, after second 'and' insert
subject to subsection (1A) below,';

No. 186, in page 76, line 13, at end insert—
'(1A) Subsections (2A) and (3) of section 8 of this Act shall apply as respects such employees of the Board or of an islands council as are transferred to a new water and sewerage authority as those subsections apply as respects employees of a regional council who are so transferred (subsection (4) of that section applying to an order made by virtue of this subsection as that subsection applies to an order made by virtue of subsection (1) above).'—[Mr. Stewart.]

Clause 109

VESTING OF CERTAIN SUPPLY PIPES

Amendments made: No. 158, in page 83, line 9, leave out from 'supplied' to 'shall' in line 11;

No. 159, in page 83, line 13, at end add
'as shall any apparatus used wholly or mainly in connection with that supply pipe; and a supply pipe in so far as so lying is, together with any apparatus so used in connection with it, referred to in the following provisions of this section as a "relevant supply pipe".';

No. 160, in page 84, line 8, after 'whether' insert '-(a)';

No. 161, in page 84, line 9, leave out from 'unjustified' to
'pipe' in line 10 and insert

';(b) apparatus is used wholly or mainly in connection with a supply pipe; or
(c) on a specified day a relevant supply'—[Mr. Stewart.]

Clause 116

DIRECTIONS IN THE INTERESTS OF NATIONAL SECURITY

Amendment made: No. 96, in page 87, line 4, leave out 'or sewerage services' and insert
',the provision of sewerage or disposal of sewage'—[Mr. Stewart.]

Clause 122

POWER TO REQUIRE LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND ASSESSORS TO SUPPLY INFORMATION TO THE NEW AUTHORITIES

Amendment made: No. 162, in page 89, line 20, leave out from 'date' to '27' in line 21 and insert
—(i) "local authority" means an authority constituted under section 2 of this Act or a residuary body; and (ii) "assessor" shall be construed in accordance with section'—[Mr. Stewart.]

Clause 124

INTERPRETATION OF PART II

Amendment made: No. 98, in page 89, line 42, at end insert—
' "local authority" means, subject to section 122(3), an authority constituted under section 2;'—[Mr. Stewart.]

Clause 136

TRANSFER OF STAFF, PROPERTY ETC. TO THE ADMINISTRATION

Amendment made: No. 187, in page 93, line 44, leave out subsection (1)—[M r. Stewart.]

Clause 140

DENOMINATIONAL SCHOOLS: PROPOSALS UNDER SECTION 22D OF EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) ACT 1980

Amendments made: No. 99, in page 96, line 13, at beginning insert 'in subsection (2)(a), for the word "the" there shall be substituted "an"; ( )';

No. 100, in page 96, line 32, leave out from 'pupils' to
'as' in line 33 and insert 'belonging to the area of another education authority';

No. 101, in page 96, line 37, after 'other' insert 'public';

No. 102, in page 96, leave out lines 38 to 40—[Mr. Stewart.]

Clause 141

PROVISION OF SCHOOL TRANSPORT AND OTHER FACILITIES

Mr. Jimmy Hood: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 97, line 11, at end insert—
'(aa) in subsection (1) at the end there shall be inserted— "; provided that any motor vehicle used for the conveyance of pupils pursuant to this subsection shall be equipped with seatbelts for the use of any passengers travelling in it.".'.
I want to start by stating the obvious—that this amendment is about education and that its competency is wholly relevant to education in Scotland. It seeks to make compulsory the fitting of seat belts in all vehicles transporting children to and from school. The Minister seems to think that this is a matter for the Department of Transport rather than for the Scottish Office. He is wrong, and I hope to persuade the House why it is so important that we provide protection for children travelling to and from school.
9 pm
There is a legal obligation on parents to send their children to school. It is therefore not unreasonable for them to expect the Government to provide legislation to ensure that their children are transported safely. My amendment would ensure that the legislation provided such protection. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State—the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James DouglasHamilton)—together with the Minister for Roads and Traffic, whom I am pleased to see in his place, have argued that we cannot legislate without impinging on the competency of the European Commission and that seat belts can be made compulsory only by means of Europewide legislation. The Select Committee on European Legislation, of which I am the Chairman, is currently inquiring into the competence of member states in respect of all issues of road safety. We hope, by the summer recess, to have taken evidence from the

Commission and from both Ministers. I have not so far been persuaded of the validity of some of the Government's arguments. However, I shall not try to anticipate the Committee's conclusions.
Not long ago, we sat many hours during the course of which the Prime Minister himself sought to convince the House—in particular, his own Back Benchers—on the question of subsidiarity. If the protection of children travelling to and from school is not a matter for subsidiarity, what is? I want to read into the record a Commission statement dated 8 February. In that statement, Commissioner Bangemann outlines the approach that he intends to adopt to improve protection for bus and coach passengers, especially against the risk of ejection in the event of an accident:
In the meantime, as the Commission has previously indicated, member states may still, within the limits set by Community law, introduce legislation regarding the use of certain categories of vehicles to transport members of the public—for example, motorway coaches or school buses.
I quote that comment for the purpose of stopping the nonsensical suggestion that the protection we seek cannot be provided by the House of Commons—that it can come only from Brussels. I do not accept that, and the words that I have just quoted prove our point.
The Government make a case about cost. They say that the cost of the compulsory provision of seat belts would be too inhibiting. It is nonsense to talk about cost in the context of children's lives. But let us get the matter into perspective. Like many other people, I argue that the cost involved here is not great. Seat belts could be fitted to a 53-seat coach for no more—probably less—than it takes to put a stereo cassette and a video unit in a coach. In that light, what we are talking about takes on a different meaning. If seat belts had to be fitted in all buses, the cost would obviously come down. Lo and behold, it might also be possible to give jobs to the unemployed. When people talk about cost, let them compare like with like.
In this situation, cost should not be an issue. In any case, it is estimated that the implementation of the Bill will cost up to £700 million. In that context, what is the relevance of questioning the cost of protecting children on their way to and from school?

Mr. Foulkes: I assure my hon. Friend that he has not only my support but that of my constituent Dorothy Wilson, whose son Christopher was tragically killed last year in a school bus at Auchinleck. Christopher's mother has set up a group to argue the case that my hon. Friend is putting forward so eloquently. My hon. Friend will have the eternal gratitude of Dorothy Wilson and her whole family if the Minister and the House accept his amendment.

Mr. Hood: I thank my hon. Friend. I have indeed met his constituent, and it was a tragic case.
Twenty-two children have been killed in coach accidents in the past 28 weeks—almost one child a week. We do not have time to equivocate or pontificate about where competence may lie. Our children are in daily danger of being killed as they travel to and from school. We have the power to stop that; I hope that the Minister will take action tonight to do just that.
I ask Conservative Members and Ministers to put themselves in the place of a bereaved parent and to think long and hard before voting against the amendment.
On 17 February this year at 10 o'clock in the morning, I received a phone call from my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths), telling me that he had just heard on the news that a child had been killed in a school bus accident in Biggar. A few minutes before I had phoned my wife at home, and she told me that my daughter had left for Biggar high school on the school bus. For a few minutes, therefore, I did not know whether the child who had been killed was my own daughter. I shall never forget the feeling of despair and anguish I experienced as I phoned home to find out from my wife whether my daughter had been killed. Fortunately she was able to tell me that it was not my daughter who had been involved in the accident.
My feeling was one of relief, immediately followed by guilt because I was relieved to learn that someone else's child, not mine, had been killed. I have since met the parents of the two children who died—another child died some time after the accident. I am determined to put in place legislation to protect our kids.
I should like to record my thanks to the Minister for the courteous way in which he received the parents who came to present a petition bearing 46,254 signatures. I have read press comments to the effect that the signatures came from all over Scotland; in fact most of them came from my constituency. That means that well over 60 per cent. of my constituents must have signed the petition.
The Minister knows what is required now—indeed, I suspect that he supports the amendment. I know from my discussions with him that he is sympathetic and supportive. I hope that he will give us good news tonight. We must adopt seat belt legislation as a matter of urgency. Certainly, the supervision of school buses, coach design, traffic management and the installation of seat belts are all important parts of the overall solution, but seat belts are the most important.
The Government have three options. They can support my amendment, as I hope they will; or they can tell the House that they intend to return later with legislation to make seat belts compulsory on school coaches; or they can turn their backs on the problem and walk away. I very much hope that they will not turn their backs on it.

Mr. Gordon McMaster: I thank my hon. Friend and congratulate him on what he is trying to achieve tonight. He will be aware that in a parliamentary answer to me, the Minister has already said he would disregard for capping purposes any expenditure incurred by local authorities. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not enough, because it does not make seat belts compulsory on school buses?

Mr. Hood: My hon. Friend raises an important point. While I welcome the measure, and acknowledge that the Government's initial response was helpful, we still need legislation. We cannot have discretion when we are talking about saving children's lives. We cannot have a discretion which may be taken up in one part of the country but not in another. If it is at the discretion of expenditure for local authorities, priorities will take over and we will not achieve the safety that we require.
Therefore, it is important to have legislation to make it compulsory to have seat belts in school buses and I hope the Minister supports that tonight.
The Government do not have the option of walking away. If they walk away, turn their backs and allow the carnage of children being transported in buses that are then involved in crashes, deaths in school bus crashes will continue. In amendment No. 3 we have the opportunity to stop that carnage, so I hope the Minister will take the opportunity tonight and support the amendment.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I intervene in the debate because today we have had the announcement of the final figures for road casualties in Scotland, England and Wales for 1993.
The good news is that since the Department of Transport set a target of cutting casualties involving deaths and serious injuries by one third by the year 2000, it has virtually achieved that target. That is a staggering achievement which covers the whole of Great Britain. It is one for which most other countries in Europe, and certainly countries in North America, would give their eye teeth.
One of the more impressive interpretations is that if we accept that road traffic has increased by virtually 40 per cent., the rate at which people are killed and seriously injured has halved. That is dramatic. We have not had the same change for slight injuries, but those do not matter so much.
For the number of deaths to have come down from an average of 5,600 to just over 3,800 is a tribute to road engineers, vehicle engineers and those who use the roads —motor cyclists, cyclists and car users—have all contributed.
As the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) rightly pointed out, there are still 3,800 deaths a year in Great Britain. We know the causes and the consequences of the crashes.
The whole House will agree with the hon. Gentleman that the time will come when all organised transport for children to and from school will have seat belts and the law will require that they should be used.
I have not been able to track back through the amendment, which will amend the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, to find out whether it would affect private transport as well as organised transport by the school, but I do not want to make nit-picking points. Getting it right will reduce risks and avoid some of the consequences when there is a crash.
As Esther Rantzen showed in her "That's Life" programmes in 1986, a child in a crash is more at risk of severe injury and we should accept that by being belted up in a car, a child reduces that risk by half or two thirds. That is a significant improvement. The improvement for a passenger in a bus or coach is less, but it is probably still significant; the improvement for a passenger in a minibus is probably the same as if they were in a car, so we need to work for all those improvements.
No doubt my hon. Friend the Minister will make a formal response to the amendment, put it in context and say what the Government may be able to achieve. If the House takes action which moves people from organised transport to parents' cars, we shall increase the risk by two or three times. A passenger in a private car is at two or three times the risk of someone in a bus or a minibus. We should be slightly careful about saying that a blanket change will instantly reduce the risk for those who travel on organised transport. I think that we will need to work out how to reduce the risk, while encouraging those who are putting


out contracts for transport to introduce safety provisions at a certain time—perhaps now or at a specified time in the future.
I say to both my hon. Friends on the Front Bench that the time has come to abolish the out-of-date habit of allowing education authorities to put three teenagers in seats which are meant for two.
Anyone who looks at 13-year-olds nowadays and pretends that three of them can be squeezed safely into a bus seat made for two is wrong. Responsibility in this area is shared by the Department of the Environment, the Treasury, the Department of Transport and the territorial departments. They should respond to the recent tragic vehicle accidents by abolishing that provision at once.

Mr. John McFall: I support the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood). As he mentioned, between August 1993 and February 1994 we have seen 21 school children and three adults die on our roads. Five people have been seriously injured and 105 school children have been hurt.
In Scotland, we are particularly concerned about the incident in Biggar involving two pupils, Francis Scorgie and Tony Cousins. In the discussions we have had with parents' groups and others since then, the message has come across that only national legislation will secure compliance with real safety requirements and will guarantee the central Government funding which is necessary in order to implement them. If that were the case, bus companies, schools or local authorities could no longer pass the buck and continue to confuse parents with the finer details of contractual law.
The national Government need to help local government to combat the problem. The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) mentioned the three-for-two rule. The Lothian region has abolished that rule and contractual arrangements make sure that the three-for-two rule does not apply. In Strathclyde, it will be abolished from the 1994–95 session. Strathclyde has also made an immediate commitment to spend £4.35 million on seat belts. Its total commitment will be £10.29 million over the next two years.
We are looking for a financial commitment from the Government to help local authorities with this problem. The Government can help in a number of areas—for example, vehicle identification for minibuses. A pilot scheme was conducted in my constituency of Dumbarton involving fitting to vehicles a sign on the nearside sun visor in the down position. The local authority has undertaken that scheme, but we need a commitment from national Government to reaffirm that that is the right way to go.
Within the context of the European Union, Strathclyde has also undertaken preparatory work on legislation to make mandatory the fitting of signs saying "Front" and "Rear" to all school transport vehicles. The Government could make identification mandatory for school vehicles. If that can be done in every town and city in America, it can be done in the United Kingdom.
Strathclyde and other local authorities are looking to central Government to consider, within any national guidelines and school transport provisions, the fitting of vehicle signs and the illumination of school buses while pupils are embarking or disembarking.
Above all, we require national guidelines about home-to-school transport. The Secretary of State for Scotland should address the full range of parental concerns regarding home-to-school transport by devising a set of national guidelines for implementation and resourcing local authorities through central Government.
I ask the Scottish Office Minister responsible for education to form a national working group of interested parties to devise these guidelines. That group should include parent representatives from, for example, the Scottish School Boards Association and the Scottish Parents Teachers Council.
We are masters in our own country when it comes to European legislation. The British Government are at liberty to name their own rules in relation to seat belts. I contacted the House of Commons Library today and I was informed that the United Kingdom can pass legislation that seat belts must be worn, but it cannot independently pass legislation that belts and anchorages must be fitted.
I am sure that hon. Members in all parts of the House agree with my hon. Friends that if the Government give a sign that they will pass such legislation, that will reassure thousands of parents throughout the country that the Government are serious. We ask the Government to make a genuine response tonight.
At the beginning of my speech, I mentioned the tragic fatal accident at Biggar involving two young people. The mother of one of them, Shona Cousins, said recently that she felt like walking into the Houses of Parliament and yelling, "Get a move on." We endorse that sentiment. We will not yell, "Get a move on," but we make a heartfelt plea on behalf of Shona Cousins and other parents who have tragically lost their children that the Government get a move on and legislate immediately.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), whose speech was moving, eloquent and passionately argued. I cannot understand the delay. Voices north of the border are legitimately asking why Scottish Office Ministers seem to hide behind the fact that this issue is not their responsibility—that the Department of Transport is the lead Department. That may be the case —and it is a welcome sign to see the Minister for Roads and Traffic in his place to hear these important discussions. However, it is weak-kneed in the extreme of the Scottish Office to say the matter has nothing to do with it and that action must await an already long-awaited report. I understand that the report is much more superficial than people expected, given the length of time taken to produce it.
I cannot understand the continuous and continuing delay. It is incumbent on the Government to take this evening's appropriate opportunity to make a clear statement. A clear statement in principle would do. If they will say, "We are committed to this in principle," we could argue about the time scale, funding and the relationship between central and local government in future. All that could be discussed, and it would be sensible to take time to get those aspects right.
At present, we are missing a clear statement that the Government have the political will to address the issue with the seriousness that it deserves, in the way that the hon. Member for Clydesdale did. I entirely subscribe to the argument that discussions should embrace the question of three pupils to two seats, and supervision should also be


reviewed. Proper provisions may cost money in the long run, but they are absolutely essential. The lives of 22 young children have been lost in 28 weeks, and that is a frightening statistic. There is not a lot of time. There are questions urgently to be addressed. The Government have the power to legislate, and I fail to understand how Conservative Members could possibly be persuaded to vote against the amendment. It would take a strong argument from the Treasury Bench to persuade me that it would be right to do so. The Government have the power to legislate, but they are not exercising it. The people of Scotland are right to ask why.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: With the indulgence of the House, I shall make a brief contribution. If we wait for Europe, we will wait a long time. The Government have been talking to the European Commission for years about this matter, and there is not much enthusiasm from many member states for protecting their children in the way that we want to protect the children of this country. I see no reason why we should not go it alone.
At present, local education authorities or school governors can tell their contractors, "You will not bus our children unless seat belts are fitted in your vehicles." They could do that immediately. With all the publicity that has been given to the issue, many local authorities are debating it now. As contracts are usually renewed in September, they will tell their contractors that from now on, their vehicles must be fitted with seat belts.
We have a dilemma. One cannot just fit seat belts. Bus and coach operators have been here today with lap belts and seats down in Dining Room B. The problem is that the front forward-facing seats that are exposed—the two front seats on the opposite side to the driver, and the middle seats at the back—must have seat belts now by law. Usually, the loading is 10G. The question is whether 6G is acceptable on other seats; if not, a great deal of structural alteration to the floors has to be made, because not all the seats go into chassis metal members.
It is very important that the Government give us the conclusions of the technical and cost report that they have on the table at the moment, because once we have that and get some technical guidance we will not need Government money or any great incentive; the coach operators. are waiting to fit them. In fact, many of them have ordered them by the thousand and have them on the shelf waiting to fit, but cannot do so ahead of the conclusions of the report, which we hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will be able to announce shortly. I do not see why, as the majority of trips are made by schools. The voluntary people with their own bus could have a fund-raising event and fit their own. They could go ahead and do it tomorrow, but we need the technical information.
That is why I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), on the Opposition Benches, will be able to withdraw his amendment if we get the right answers tonight. [Interruption.] Yes, he is a friend. I like him.
If the Government show us that they are really going for it and we are to go it alone, we can get on and do it almost immediately. The coach operators wish to do it. The school governors want it. Many voluntary organisations want it, but we must have the technical know-how to ensure the

correct loading on the belts. They are not just pretty belts to put around people. They must have an impact loading. That is the important thing.
I implore my hon. Friend to try to give us some guidance. If he cannot do so tonight, he should promise it within a few days so that the coach operators know the loading and what structural alterations have to be made.

Mrs. Ewing: In supporting the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), I make two personal points: first, I am a former pupil of Biggar high school and, although I did not know the youngsters involved or, indeed, the families, it touches one's heart when one thinks about the circumstances. I am very concerned about the pupils. Secondly, as a member of the Select Committee on European Legislation, I sit with the hon. Member when we deal with that aspect of legislation.
I started writing to the various Departments involved in the issue some time ago. It might be useful to remind the House that we are not looking for a knee-jerk reaction to a particular incident, but for legislation that will be effective and long term. When I first started taking up the issue, it was because parents in my constituency were writing to me about their concerns, because I represent a rural area, as does the hon. Gentleman, where youngsters have to travel long distances to reach their school.
I wrote to the Secretary of State for Transport and to the Minister for education and housing in the Scottish Office a considerable time ago and raised the issue of seat belts on minibuses. I made four points: what freedom the UK Government have to implement legislation pertaining to seat belts in minibuses and coaches; whether the Government have any facility to assist financially any owners or companies wishing to install them; what is the practice of our European Union partner countries; and what European directives and regulations have been issued on such matters.
To be fair, both Departments responded fairly quickly. The Minister for education and housing at the Scottish Office mentioned the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, which has already been referred to. But there is also the issue of regulation 3(a) of the Schools (Safety and Supervision of Pupils) (Scotland) Regulations 1990 for pupils when under their charge and under common law. As we have seen in the Aberdeen Evening Express, if we go ahead with the legislation, it could cost Grampian regional council £2 million. That is part of the difficulty that many local authorities face. If our local authorities are to implement effective regulations that will ensure that children travel to school in safety—from whatever corner of the community they come—the Government must recognise that they have a duty to assist authorities in implementing those regulations. The responsibility must be placed firmly with them.
In a letter dated 22 February, the Minister wrote:
We are currently reviewing the full technical and cost implications of seat belts in these vehicles. Until this review is complete and we have full reports on the recent tragic accidents we feel that it would not be wise to consider making further regulations in this area.
We desperately want to know when the reports will be forthcoming: until we see them, we shall not know whether the Government are making any commitment to introduce the appropriate safety legislation.
9.30 pm
It is wrong for Ministers to blame the European Commission and European legislators for the problem. I have a copy of the sessional documents, dated as far back as December last year; the relevant motion was moved in the name of the European People's party, to which I believe the Government subscribe. The motion asked for individual member states to be allowed and encouraged to take over the whole idea of seat belts and roll-over bars in all new coaches as a matter of urgency. I shall send the document to the Minister if he wishes, but it is quite clear that there is a commitment to seat belts in Europe.
At the end of last year, the Government tried to blame the European Commission and the European Union for the fact that seat belts had not been installed. That is appalling. Contradictory statements were put out, which caused considerable confusion and concern to parents in my constituency and elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Let me place it on record that responsibility lies with the Government: they must legislate.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I will be brief. I had intended to speak for three hours, but I will speak for three minutes.
The issue seems simple to me. I cannot understand why anyone has not already legislated for seat belts to be provided in all vehicles carrying people at risk, whether they are of tender age, in old age or middle-aged. My one criticism of the amendment is that it is restricted to school children. Why should it not apply to all of us?
I have heard the excuses relating to cost, delay and the difficulties involved in fitting seat belts. I do not recall those arguments being accepted when seat belts were introduced for motor cars. If motorists did not have them, they were in trouble. No one said, "It takes an awfully long time to fit a seat belt; you have to measure it and fiddle around with it." Absolute nonsense!
This legislation is essential, and I hope that it will be extended to every member of the population. I thoroughly commend the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) for tabling the amendment. No excuses based on cost, delay, reports, studies or any other stupid thing will convince me. It can be done tomorrow. If someone wants a seat belt for his car, he can drive along to the garage and have it fitted. Let the Government do this tomorrow.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: This is an extremely important debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) pointed out—he has been a transport Minister—the number of road casualties has fallen, but that leaves no room for complacency. There can be no walking away from the problem; it will be given proper consideration. Indeed, it is being given urgent consideration now.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) said, local authorities can do much by putting into their contracts the most appropriate terms and conditions to lay down in the circumstances.
The hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) made a moving and effective speech to raise an important issue. I fully understand his concerns; the fact that he lives in Biggar, and so shared the grief of that community following the Biggar school bus crash on 10 February, underlines his commitment to the cause. I was especially glad that he led a delegation of local parents from the

Biggar area to see me in Edinburgh on 15 April, so that they could put forward their concerns to the Government. I listened to the powerful points that they made.
I have had several meetings with my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic, and I am glad to see that he is here for the debate. The Scottish evidence has, of course, been fed in to the process.
More recently, the whole House will have shared the grief of the families of the two cub scouts, Andrew Lyle and Richard Olsson, and of Mr. Anthony Milburn—the three people killed in the tragic accident in North Yorkshire earlier this week. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will receive a full report on that accident, too, as soon as possible.
I make it clear at the outset that the Government share the deeply felt public concern about safety standards in school transport. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the safety of children is at the forefront of our concern. However, the Secretary of State for Transport has the lead responsibility for vehicle safety matters in the United Kingdom. His Department has recently completed a review of the technical and cost implications of fitting seat belts to all minibuses and coaches, and of related safety matters. The Government will take decisions shortly on the outcome of that review.
I am sure that there will be no disagreement in the House that it is vital that appropriate steps should be taken in all the circumstances. But I hope that hon. Members will also agree that whatever steps we take must be the right ones, fully informed by all the available evidence.
I shall return to the wider issues later, but first I shall address the substance of the amendment. As drafted, it would have a damaging effect on the delivery by education authorities of a school transport service, because it would require that no buses could transport children to school unless they were fitted with seat belts. If that restriction were incorporated into the Bill, it would in practice prevent education authorities from providing school transport for most of the children presently dependent on school buses to get to and from their schools. I am sure that that is not what the hon. Gentleman intended, but that is what the amendment would do.
Secondly, as I have said, the question whether seat belts should be fitted to any category of motor vehicles, including buses, is properly a matter for the Secretary of State for Transport. It would not be appropriate to introduce into clause 141 a provision on seat belts restricted to school transport in Scotland alone. Yet that would be the result of the amendment.

Mr. McLeish: This is a Scottish Bill, and the Minister is responsible for it.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The matter has to be dealt with on a British basis; it will be dealt with collectively by Ministers as a whole.
Thirdly—

Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister give way?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No.
Thirdly, the amendment is technically flawed in that it refers to line 11—

Mr. Hood: Will the Minister give way?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Clydesdale, who moved the amendment, in a moment.
The amendment refers to line 11 on page 97, and would therefore amend section 50 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980. In fact, the main provisions of that Act relating to school transport are in section 51. That is, of course, a detail, but it means that the amendment is flawed. For all those reasons, the Government must reject the amendment.

Mr. Hood: rose—

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have many more points to make, but I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Hood: May I make an obvious point? If the amendment was out of order, Madam Speaker would not have chosen it to be debated. Therefore, the amendment is within the competence of the legislation, and it is within the competence of the Scottish Office to accept that protection, as part of a Scottish Bill, to protect Scottish children.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall repeat what the Prime Minister said at the Dispatch Box yesterday:
I hope that it will not be very long before we are able to publish it"—
that is, the report. He continued:
The report has now been delivered to Ministers and I hope that they will be able to announce their conclusions shortly.
—[Official Report, 17 May 1994; Vol. 243, c. 669.]

Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister give way?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No, I shall not give way now.
The matter has to be dealt with on a British basis. I fully appreciate the widespread concern in the House for immediate Government action, but the decisions that we take will have to be right in the light of all the evidence, and the fullest knowledge of all the facts. That is our priority now. I am taking careful note of the widespread concerns that have been expressed about school transport safety, including what has been said in the House today. We are concerned to make certain that appropriate steps are taken on the safety of school transport. The Department of Transport's review looks at the technical and cost implications of fitting seat belts to all minibuses and coaches, as well as related safety matters.
I do not believe that it would be appropriate to move forward in advance of the Department's conclusions. I hope that all hon. Members would agree that it is absolutely essential that we take the right decisions on safety measures when we are fully informed by all the available evidence and of the implications of our decisions. As the Prime Minister made clear to the House, we hope to be able to do so in the near future.

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. Is the Minister giving way on an intervention?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have sat down, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Dalyell: I just want the Minister to explain how it is possible under this legislation to have legislation on the disconnection of water supplies, but apparently not possible to have a different policy on seat belts. How does that come about? We had endless arguments in the

Standing Committee about the disconnection of water supplies, and it was said to be quite proper to have separate legislation for Scotland—rightly, in the opinion of some of us—on disconnections. Why cannot the same thing be applied to seat belts? Is there an answer? The Minister is broody with answer.

Mrs. Ewing: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I find it difficult to comprehend what the Minister has just said. It now seems that we cannot amend Scottish legislation through the normal processes of the House, because we have attempted with this amendment and debate to alter regulations pertaining to Acts which solely relate to Scotland—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is not putting a point of order to me. She really is attempting to take a second bite of the cherry. She has already spoken once, and therefore I cannot allow it. She is putting questions to me which concern legislation, which is not within my authority.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: With the leave of the House, I shall explain to the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) that local authorities can put a specification into their contracts. They have that power now. The point I was making was that, while he may be confident in amending the Bill, it is not desirable before the review has reported to the House and to the Secretary of State for Transport.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 244, Noes 274.

Division No. 246]
[9.42 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Chisholm, Malcolm


Adams, Mrs Irene
Clapham, Michael


Ainger, Nick
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Allen, Graham
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Clelland, David


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Armstrong, Hilary
Coffey, Ann


Ashton, Joe
Connarty, Michael


Austin-Walker, John
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Barnes, Harry
Corston, Ms Jean


Barron, Kevin
Cousins, Jim


Battle, John
Cummings, John


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Bell, Stuart
Dafis, Cynog


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dalyell, Tam


Bennett, Andrew F.
Darling, Alistair


Benton, Joe
Davidson, Ian


Bermingham, Gerald
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Berry, Roger
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Betts, Clive
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Blair, Tony
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)


Blunkett, David
Dixon, Don


Boateng, Paul
Dobson, Frank


Boyes, Roland
Donohoe, Brian H.


Bradley, Keith
Dowd, Jim


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Eagle, Ms Angela


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Eastham, Ken


Burden, Richard
Enright, Derek


Caborn, Richard
Etherington, Bill


Callaghan, Jim
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Fairbaim, Sir Nicholas


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Fatchett, Derek


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Canavan, Dennis
Flynn, Paul


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek






Foster, Don (Bath)
Mandelson, Peter


Foulkes, George
Marek, Dr John


Fraser, John
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Fyfe, Maria
Martlew, Eric


Galloway, George
Maxton, John


Gapes, Mike
Michael, Alun


Garrett, John
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


George, Bruce
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Gerrard, Neil
Milburn, Alan


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Miller, Andrew


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Godsiff, Roger
Morgan, Rhodri


Golding, Mrs Llin
Morley, Elliot


Gordon, Mildred
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Graham, Thomas
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Mudie, George


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mullin, Chris


Grocott, Bruce
Murphy, Paul


Gunnell, John
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hain, Peter
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hall, Mike
O'Hara, Edward


Hanson, David
Olner, William


Hardy, Peter
O'Neill, Martin


Harvey, Nick
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Henderson, Doug
Parry, Robert


Heppell, John
Pendry, Tom


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Pickthall, Colin


Hinchliffe, David
Pike, Peter L.


Hoey, Kate
Pope, Greg


Hogg, Norman (Cumbemauld)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Home Robertson, John
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hood, Jimmy
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hoon, Geoffrey
Prescott, John


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Primarolo, Dawn


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hoyle, Doug
Radice, Giles


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Raynsford, Nick


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Redmond, Martin


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Reid, Dr John


Hutton, John
Rendel, David


Illsley, Eric
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Ingram, Adam
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Rogers, Allan


Jamieson, David
Rooker, Jeff


Janner, Greville
Rooney, Terry


Johnston, Sir Russell
Ross, Emie (Dundee W)


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Rowlands, Ted


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Ruddock, Joan


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Salmond, Alex


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Sedgemore, Brian


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Sheerman, Barry


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Keen, Alan
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Short, Clare


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Simpson, Alan


Khabra, Piara S.
Skinner, Dennis


Kilfoyle, Peter
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Kirkwood, Archy
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Lewis, Terry
Soley, Clive


Livingstone, Ken
Spearing, Nigel


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Stevenson, George


Loyden, Eddie
Stott, Roger


Lynne, Ms Liz
Strang, Dr. Gavin


McAllion, John
Straw, Jack


McAvoy, Thomas
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McCartney, Ian
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Macdonald, Calum
Tyler, Paul


McFall, John
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


McKelvey, William
Wallace, James


McLeish, Henry
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Maclennan, Robert
Wareing, Robert N


McMaster, Gordon
Watson, Mike


McNamara, Kevin
Welsh, Andrew


MacShane, Denis
Wicks, Malcolm


McWilliam, John
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Madden, Max
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Wilson, Brian





Winnick, David
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Wise, Audrey



Worthington, Tony
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wray, Jimmy
Mr. Alan Meale and


Wright, Dr Tony
Mr. J. Spellar.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Alexander, Richard
Dover, Den


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Duncan, Alan


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Amess, David
Dunn, Bob


Arbuthnot, James
Durant, Sir Anthony


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Dykes, Hugh


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Eggar, Tim


Ashby, David
Elletson, Harold


Aspinwall, Jack
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Atkins, Robert
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Baldry, Tony
Evennett, David


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Faber, David


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fabricant, Michael


Bates, Michael
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Batiste, Spencer
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bellingham, Henry
Fishburn, Dudley


Bendall, Vivian
Forman, Nigel


Beresford, Sir Paul
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Forth, Eric


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Body, Sir Richard
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Booth, Hartley
Fry, Sir Peter


Boswell, Tim
Gale, Roger


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Gallie, Phil


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Gardiner, Sir George


Bowden, Andrew
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Bowis, John
Garnier, Edward


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Gill, Christopher


Brandreth, Gyles
Gillan, Cheryl


Brazier, Julian
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bright, Graham
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Gorst, John


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Budgen, Nicholas
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Burns, Simon
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Burt, Alistair
Grylls, Sir Michael


Butcher, John
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Butler, Peter
Hague, William


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Carrington, Matthew
Hampson, Dr Keith


Carttiss, Michael
Hannam, Sir John


Cash, William
Hargreaves, Andrew


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Harris, David


Chapman, Sydney
Haselhurst, Alan


Churchill, Mr
Hawkins, Nick


Clappison, James
Hayes, Jerry


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Heald, Oliver


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hendry, Charles


Coe, Sebastian
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Colvin, Michael
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Congdon, David
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Conway, Derek
Horam, John


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Couchman, James
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Cran, James
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensboume)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hunter, Andrew


Day, Stephen
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jack, Michael


Devlin, Tim
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jenkin, Bernard


Dicks, Terry
Jessel, Toby


Dorrell, Stephen
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey






Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Key, Robert
Sackville, Tom


King, Rt Hon Tom
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Kirkhope, Timothy
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knapman, Roger
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Knox, Sir David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Soames, Nicholas


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Speed, Sir Keith


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Spencer, Sir Derek


Legg, Barry
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Leigh, Edward
Spink, Dr Robert


Lidington, David
Spring, Richard


Lightbown, David
Sproat, Iain


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lord, Michael
Steen, Anthony


Luff, Peter
Stephen, Michael


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stern, Michael


MacKay, Andrew
Stewart, Allan


Maclean, David
Streeter, Gary


McLoughlin, Patrick
Sumberg, David


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Sweeney, Walter


Malone, Gerald
Sykes, John


Mans, Keith
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Marlow, Tony
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mates, Michael
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Thumharn, Peter


Merchant, Piers
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mills, Iain
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Tracey, Richard


Moate, Sir Roger
Tredinnick, David


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Trend, Michael


Moss, Malcolm
Trotter, Neville


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nicholls, Patrick
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Viggers, Peter


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Norris, Steve
Walden, George


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Waller, Gary


Oppenheim, Phillip
Ward, John


Ottaway, Richard
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Page, Richard
Waterson, Nigel


Paice, James
Watts, John


Patten, Rt Hon John
Whitney, Ray


Pawsey, James
Widdecombe, Ann


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Pickles, Eric
Wilkinson, John


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Willetts, David


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wilshire, David


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Wolfson, Mark


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Wood, Timothy


Richards, Rod
Yeo, Tim


Riddick, Graham
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Robathan, Andrew



Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Tellers for the Noes:


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Mr. Irvine Patnick and


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Mr. Bowen Wells.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Clause 146

EXCLUSION FROM VALUATION ROLL OF SHOOTINGS,DEER FORESTS AND FISHINGS

Amendments made: No. 188, in page 99, line 41, leave out 'or'.

No. 189, in page 99, line 42, after 'fishings' insert 'or fish counters'.

No. 190, in page 99, line 46 [Clause 146], at end insert—
'() For the purposes of this section—

"fish counter" means any weir or other structure in inland waters primarily used for the purpose of counting fish; and
"inland waters" has the same meaning as in section 24(1) (interpretation) of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act 1951.'.—[Mr. Stewart.]

Clause 156

POWER OF SECRETARY OF STATE TO COMBINE AND DIVIDE LANDS AND HERITAGES

Amendments made: No. 103, in page 104, line 30, leave out '(a)'.

No. 104, in page 104, line 32, leave out from
'Parliament;' to end of line 37.—[Mr. Stewart]

Clause 160

POWERS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO BORROW AND LEND MONEY

Amendments made: No. 105, in page 106, line 30, leave out 'order made by statutory instrument' and insert 'regulations'.

No. 106, in page 106, leave out lines 31 to 33 and insert—
'() Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument, but shall not be made unless a draft of any such statutory instrument has been laid before and approved by resulution of each House of Parliament.'.

No. 107, in page 106, leave out lines 37 to 39.—[Mr. Stewart.]

Clause 163

DIRECT LABOUR ORGANISATION/DIRECT SERVICES ORGANISATION ACCOUNTS

Amendments made: No. 219, in page 108, line 20, leave out from 'section,' to
'for' in line 22 and insert 'Direct Labour Organisation/Direct Services Organisation Funds (to be known as "DLO/DSO funds")'.

No. 220, in page 108, line 35, leave out from 'above' to the end of 37 and insert
'and which is, in the opinion of the authority, not required for the purpose of dealing with deficits in any such fund, may be transferred by them to the general fund maintained by them under section 93 of the Act of 1973 (general fund).'.

No. 221, in page 108, leave out line 42 and insert
'Paragraphs 22(1)(c) and 24A of Schedule 3 to the 1975 Act'.—[Mr. Stewart.]

Clause 171

POWERS TO CARRY ON TOURISM-RELATED ACTIVITIES

Amendment made: No. 191, in page 117, line 32, leave out 'in their area'.—[Mr. Stewart.]

Clause 172

PARLIAMENTARY DISQUALIFICATION

Amendments made: No. 108, in page 118, line 39, after 'by' insert 'virtue of'.

No. 109, in page 118, line 41, after 'by' insert 'virtue of.

No. 110, in page 118, line 44, after 'by' insert 'virtue of'.—[Mr. Stewart.]

Schedule 13

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 224, in page 158, line 25, at end insert—
'( ) In section 119(3) (special provisions as to Scotland), for the words from "A" to "shall" substitute "A local roads authority".'.

No. 120, in page 160, line 33, leave out '(a)'.

No. 121, in page 160, line 34, leave out from beginning to 'paragraphs' in line 35.

No. 122, in page 160, line 35, leave out from 'below'
to end of line 37.

No. 123, in page 160, line 47, leave out 'chief officer' and insert 'firemaster'.

No. 124, in page 161, line 17, leave out from beginning to end of line 22 and insert
', the fire authorities affected by it may amend or revoke that scheme by a subsequent scheme submitted to the Secretary of State by them jointly and the Secretary of State may by order approve any such subsequent scheme submitted to him.
(7A) A subsequent scheme under subsection (7) above may make provision with respect to any of the matters for which provision is required to be made, or may be made, by virtue of subsections (4), (5), (8)(b) and (8A) of this section.
(7B)'.

No. 125, in page 161, line 23, leave out '(b)'.

No. 126, in page 161, line 36, leave out from first 'and' to end of line 39 and insert
'such an order may make provision with respect to any of the matters for which provision is required to be made, or which may be made, by virtue of subsections (4), (5) and (8A) of this section.'.

No. 127, in page 162, line 2, leave out 'chief officer' and insert 'firemaster'.

No. 128, in page 162, line 4, leave out 'chief officer' and insert 'firemaster'.

No. 225, in page 163, line 24, leave out -regional, islands or district council" substitute and insert
'the words from "any" to the end substitute "any'.

No. 129, in page 173, line 8, at end insert—
'( ) in subsection (3), for "committee", where it secondly and thirdly occurs, substitute "board";'.

No. 163, in page 175, line 21, at end insert—
'( ) In section 63(2)(c) (activities in respect of which instruction may be provided etc.), for the words from "or" where it fourthly occurs, to the end substitute "or a council constituted under section 2 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994".'.

No. 164, in page 175, line 27, after 'secondly' insert 'and thirdly'.

No. 131, in page 182, line 6, leave out "and".

No. 132, in page 182, line 7, at end insert '; and
(e) in subsection (8), for "duties of the reporter" substitute "functions of the Principal Reporter under this Act and under the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975.".'.

No. 133, in page 183, line 8, leave out "and".

No. 134, in page 183, line 23, at end insert '; and
(c) in paragraph 7, for "may" substitute "shall"'.

No. 226, in page 185, line 27, leave out "'regional or islands council" substitute and insert
'the words from "Scotland" to "council" substitute "Scotland, a'.

No. 298, in page 186, line 3, after 'insurance)' insert '—(a)'.

No. 299, in page 186, line 6, at end insert '; and

(b) after "such council" insert "the Strathclyde Passenger Transport Authority"'.

No. 227, in page 186, line 44, leave out from second 'for' to
'constituted' in line 45 and insert 'the words from "the council", where they thirdly occur, to "Scotland" substitute ", in relation to Scotland, a council'.

No. 228, in page 188, line 19, at end insert—
'( ) In section 31 (disqualification for nomination etc.)—

(a) for the words "chairman or vice-chairman", in both places where they occur, substitute "convener or depute convener";
(b) after subsection (3) insert—

"(3A) A person who is for the time being an officer or employee of the Strathclyde Passenger Transport Authority or an employee of a subsidiary of that Authority shall be disqualified for being appointed or for being a member of the Strathclyde Passenger Transport Authority."; and

(c) subsection (4) shall cease to have effect.'.

( ) In section 38 (disability of members from voting etc.), in subsection (4) for the words "chairman or vice-chairman" substitute "convener or depute convener".'.

No. 135, in page 188, line 24, at end insert—
'( ) In section 50B (access to agenda and connected reports), in subsection (4)(b), for the word "chairman" substitute "convener".'.

No. 136, in page 189, line 2, at end insert—
'() In section 67 (members of authorities not to be appointed as officers), for the words "chairman or vice-chairman" substitute "convener or depute convener".'.

No. 137, in page 189, line 4, after 'purposes)' insert
'(a)'.

No. 138, in page 189, line 4, at end insert '; and
(b) in subsection (3)(c), for the words "chairman of a regional, islands or district council, a chairman" substitute "convener of a local authority, a convener".'.

No. 300, in page 189, line 37, at end insert—

'( ) In section 100 (auditor's right of access to documents)—

(a) after subsection (1) insert—

"(1A) Without prejudice to subsection (1) above, the auditor shall be entitled to require any officer, former officer, member or former member of an authority whose accounts are required to be audited in accordance with this Part of this Act to give him such information or explanation as he thinks necessary for the purposes of the audit and, if he thinks it necessary, to require any of the persons mentioned above to attend before him in person to give the information or explanation.";

(b) in subsection (2), for "subsection (1)" substitute "subsections (1) and (1A)"; and

(c) in subsection (3)—

(i) after "(1)" insert "or (I A)"; and
(ii) the words from "and to an additional fine" to the end shall cease to have effect.

'()In In subsection (3) of section 102 (reports to Commission by Controller of Audit), for the words "the audit" substitute "any matter arising out of the auditing".'.

No. 139, in page 190, line 10, at end insert—
'( ) In section 128 (educational endowments), in Table B, in subsection (2), for the words "Chairman of council" substitute "convener of council".'.

No. 229, in page 190, line 21, at end insert—
'( ) In section 133 (roads), subsection (1) shall cease to have effect.'.

No. 140, in page 191, line 14, at end insert—
'( ) Section 142 (public health) shall cease to have effect.'.

No. 141, in page 193, line 26, at end insert—
'( ) In section 190 (service of legal proceedings), for the word 'chairman', in both places where it occurs, substitute 'convener'.

No. 142, in page 193, line 26, at end insert—
'() For subsection (1) of section 194 (execution of deeds by local authority) substitute—


(1) For a purpose other than is mentioned in subsection (1A) below, a document is validly executed by a local authority if signed on behalf of that authority by their proper officer.
(1A) For the purposes of any enactment or rule of law relating to the authentication of documents, a document is validly executed by a local authority if subscribed on behalf of the authority by being executed in accordance with the provisions of subsection (1) above.
(1B) A document which bears to have been executed by a local authority in accordance with subsection (1A) above shall, in relation to such execution, be a probative document if—

(a) the subscription of the document bears to have been attested by at least one witness; or
(b) the document bears to be sealed with the seal of the authority.".'.

No. 194, in page 193, line 28, at end insert—
'( ) In section 202 (procedure, etc., for byelaws), subsection (13) shall cease to have effect.'.

No. 143, in page 194, line 22, leave out 'paragraph 5(1) of'.

No. 144, in page 194, line 23, after 'authorities)' insert—

'(a) in paragraphs 1(4), 3(1), 3(2) and 3(3), for the word "chairman" substitute "convener";
(b) in paragraphs 3(2) and (3), for the words "vice-chairman" substitute "depute convener"; and
(c) in paragraph 5(1),'.

No. 145, in page 194, line 24, leave out 'chairman or vice-chairman' and insert 'convener or depute convener'.

No. 195, in page 197, line 36, at end insert—

'The House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 (c.24)
. In Part IV of Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 (offices disqualifying for particular constituencies)—

(a) in the entry relating to Her Majesty's Lord-Lieutenant or Lieutenant for a region in Scotland—

(i) for the words "a region" substitute "an area"; and
(ii) for the words from "such part" to "Majesty" substitute "the area";

(b) the entry relating to Her Majesty's Lord-Lieutenant or Lieutenant for an islands area in Scotland shall cease to have effect; and
(c) in the entry relating to Her Majesty's Lord-Lieutenant or Lieutenant for the district of the city of Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh, or Glasgow—

(i) the words "the district of" shall cease to have effect; and
(ii) for "district" substitute "city".'.

No. 146, in page 198, line 40, at end insert—
'( ) in subsection (2) of section 28 (reports on investigations), for the word 'chairman' substitute 'convener'.

No. 230, in page 199, line 10, at end insert'—
'( ) in paragraph 22—
(i) in sub-paragraph (1), after head (b) insert—"(ba) an insurance fund, to be used for the following purposes, namely—
(i) where the authority could have insured against a risk but have not done so, defraying any loss or damage suffered, or expenses incurred, by the authority as a consequence of that risk;
(ii) paying premiums on a policy of insurance against a risk."; and
(ii) in sub-paragraph (2), after "repair fund" insert "or the insurance fund".
( ) in paragraph 24(1), after "repair fund" insert ", or an insurance fund,";'.

No. 196, in page 202, line 14, at end insert—

'The Race Relations Act 1976 (c.74.)
. In section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976 (local authorities: general statutory duty), the existing wording shall become subsection (1) of that section and after that subsection there shall be added—

(2) In this section, "local authority", in relation to Scotland, means a council constituted under section 2 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994 ("the 1994 Act") and includes—

(a) a joint board and a joint committee within the meaning of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973;
(b) the staff commission established by virtue of section 12 of the 1994 Act;
(c) a water and sewerage authority within the meaning of the 1994 Act; and
(d) the Strathclyde Passenger Transport Authority.".'.

No. 197, in page 217, line 12, at end insert—
'( ) in subsection (1), for "an islands or district council" substitute "a local authority";'.

No. 198, in page 217, line 18, at end insert—
'( ) In section 15(2) (local authority's powers in relation to provision of recreational, sporting etc. facilities), for "An islands or district council" substitute "A local authority".

No. 199, in page 217, line 19, leave out 'subsection (1) of'.

No. 200, in page 217, line 19, after '15)' insert—
(a) in subsection (1)—

(i) for "an islands or district council" substitute "a local authority";
(ii)'.

No. 201, in page 217, line 22, at end insert 'and
(iii) in each of paragraphs (c), (g)(ii) and (k)(ii), for "council", wherever it occurs, substitute "authority"; and

(b) in subsection (2)—

(i) for "an islands or district council" substitute "a local authority"; and
(ii) in paragraph (a), for "council" substitute "authority".'.

No. 231, in page 217, line 34, at end insert—
'( ) In section 18 (byelaws in relation to recreational, sporting etc. activities)—

(a) in subsection (1)—

(i) for "an islands or district council" substitute "a local authority"; and
(ii) for "council" substitute "authority";

(b) in subsection (2)(b), for "council" substitute "local authority"; and
(c) in subsection (3), for "council"—

(i) where it first occurs, substitute "local authority"; and
(ii) where it secondly occurs, substitute "authority".


( ) In section 24(1) (provision of gardening assistance for certain persons), for "An islands or district council" substitute "A local authority".
( ) In section 25 (local authority's functions in relation to cleansing of land)—

(a) in subsection (2), for "An islands or district council" substitute "A local authority"; and
(b) in subsection (3), for "islands or as the case may be district council" substitute "local authority".

( ) In section 26(1) (local authority's functions in relation to the provision of public conveniences), for "An islands or district council" substitute "A local authority".
( ) In section 27 (local authority's functions in relation to provision of a market)—

(a) in subsection (1)—

(i) for "An islands or district council" substitute "A local authority"; and
(ii) in paragraph (b)(i), for "council" substitute "authority";

(b) in subsection (3), for "An islands or district council" substitute "A local authority"; and
(c) in subsection (4), the words from "Without" to "Act" shall cease to have effect.

( ) In section 28 (local authority's functions in relation to the provision of clocks)—

(a) for "An islands or district council" substitute "A local authority"; and
(b) in paragraph (b), for "council" substitute "authority".



( ) In section 30(1), for the words from "an islands" to "may", where it first occurs, substitute "a local authority may, with the consent of the roads authority".
( ) In section 67 (interpretation), immediately before the definition of "the 1972 Act" insert—
local authority" means a council constituted under section 2 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994;".

No. 202, in page 219, line 40, leave out from 'seashore)' to end of line 41 and insert '—

(a) in each of subsections (1), (3), (4) and (5), for "district or islands council", wherever it occurs, substitute "local authority";
(b) in subsection (2)—

(i) in paragraph (a), for "council" substitute "local authority"; and
(ii) in paragraph (b)—

(1) after sub-paragraph (i) insert "and";
(2) in sub-paragraph (ii), for "the district council" substitute "any local authority other than the authority for Orkney Islands, Shetland Islands or Western Isles"; and
(3) sub-paragraph (iii) and the word "and" immediately preceding it shall cease to have effect;


(c) in subsection (5), for "council", where it secondly occurs, substitute "local authority".

( ) In section 123(1) (interpretation of sections 120 to 122), in the definition of "adjacent waters", in paragraph (b), for "district council" substitute "local authority".'.

No. 147, in page 219, line 41, at end insert—
'( ) In section 123(2) (interpretation of sections 120 to 122), after the words "purposes of ", where secondly occurring, there shall be inserted "giving notice or, as the case may be,".'.

No. 203, in page 219, line 44, at end insert—
'( ) In Schedule 2 (control of sex shops)—

(a) in each of paragraphs 3, 4, 5(1), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7) and (8), 7(2), (7), (8) and (10) and 8(1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7) and (8), for "district or islands council", wherever it occurs, substitute "local authority";
(b) in paragraph 6–

(i) in sub-paragraph (1), for "district or islands council" substitute "local authority"; and
(ii) in sub-paragraph (6), for "islands or district council" substitute "local authority";

(c) in paragraph 9—

(i) in sub-paragraphs (1), (2), (4) and (5), for "district or islands council", wherever it occurs, substitute "local authority"; and
(ii) in sub-paragraphs (3)(g) and (h), for "council", in each place where it occurs, substitute "local authority";

(d) in paragraph 10–

(i) in sub-paragraphs (1), (2) and (3), for "district or islands council", wherever it occurs, substitute "local authority"; and
(ii) in sub-paragraph (3), for "council", where it secondly and thirdly occurs, substitute "authority";

(e) in paragraph 12(1), (2)(b), (3), (4) and (6) for "district or islands council", wherever it occurs, substitute "local authority";
(f) in paragraph 13–

(i) in sub-paragraphs (1), (2), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9) and (10), for "district or islands council", wherever it occurs, substitute "local authority"; and
(ii) in sub-paragraphs (6) and (9), for "council", where it secondly occurs in each of those paragraphs, substitute "authority";

(g) in paragraph 14–

(i) in sub-paragraph (1), for "islands or district council" substitute "local authority"; and
(ii) in sub-paragraphs (2), (3), (4), (5), (6) and (7), for "district or islands council", wherever it occurs, substitute "local authority";

(h) in paragraph 15–

(i) in sub-paragraphs (1), (2), (3) and (5), for "district or islands council", wherever it occurs, substitute "local authority";
(ii) in sub-paragraph (2)(b), for "council" substitute "authority"; and

(iii) in sub-paragraph (3), for "council", where it secondly occurs, substitute "local authority";

(i) in paragraph 16(1), (2), (3) and (4), for "district or islands council", wherever it occurs, substitute "local authority";
(j) in paragraph 17–

(i) in sub-paragraphs (1), (2) and (4), for "district or islands council", wherever it occurs, substitute "local authority"; and
(ii) in sub-paragraph (4), for "council", where it secondly occurs, substitute "authority";

(k) in paragraph 18–

(i) in sub-paragraphs (1) and (2), for "district or islands council" substitute "local authority";
(ii) in sub-paragraph (1), for "council", where it secondly occurs, substitute "authority"; and
(iii) in sub-paragraph (2), for "council", where it secondly and thirdly occurs, substitute "authority";

(l) in each of paragraphs 19(8) and 20(1), (3) and (5), for "district or islands council", wherever it occurs, substitute "local authority";
(m) in paragraph 22—

(i) for "district or islands council" substitute "local authority"; and
(ii) for "its" substitute "their";

(n) in paragraph 23–

(i) in sub-paragraphs (1), (2) and (3), for "district or islands council", wherever it occurs, substitute "local authority";
(ii) in sub-paragraph (2), for "council", where it secondly occurs, substitute "authority"; and
(iii) in sub-paragraph (4)(c), for "council" substitute "local authority";

(o) in paragraph 24–

(i) in sub-paragraphs (1), (2)(a), (3), (6), (7) and (9), for "district or islands council", wherever it occurs, substitute "local authority";
(ii) in sub-paragraph (6), for "council", where it secondly, thirdly and fourthly occurs, substitute "authority"; and
(iii) in sub-paragraph (9)(b), for "council" substitute "authority"; and

(p) in paragraph 25(1) and (3), for "district or islands council", wherever it occurs, substitute "local authority".'.

No. 204, in page 221, line 41, at end insert—
'( ) In section 19(3)(b) (local authority in Scotland empowered to regulate use of roads by public service vehicles), for "regional or islands council" substitute "council constituted under section 2 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994".'.

No. 205, in page 222, line 32, at end insert—
'( ) In section 55(3) (arrangements for provision of meals etc. on picnic sites), for "regional, islands or district council" substitute "local authority".'.

No. 206, in page 222, line 35, at end insert—
'( ) In section 95(2) (recovery of expenses by road authority where contravention of section), the words "or by the district council" shall cease to have effect.
( ) In section 97(6) (trading: meanings of certain expressions)—

(a) in the definition of "relevant public market", in paragraph (b), for "regional, islands, or district council" substitute "local authority"; and
(b) in the proviso to that definition, for "council", in both places where it occurs, substitute "local authority".

( ) In section 113(1)(c) (transfer of property and liabilities in connection with special roads etc.), for "regional council" substitute "local authority".'.

No. 207, in page 222, line 41, leave out '(1)'.

No. 208, in page 222, line 42, after '(a)' insert 'in subsection (1)—
(i)'.

No. 209, in page 222, line 44, at end insert—
'( ) in the definition of "maintenance", in paragraph (b), for "an islands or district council" substitute "a local authority";'.

No. 210, in page 223, line 6, at end insert '; and


(b) in subsection (3)(c), for "an islands or district council" substitute "a local authority".'.

No. 211, in page 229, line 12, leave out from ' 1 ' to
', for' in line 13 and insert '(interpretation)—

(a) in subsection (1)—

(i) after paragraph (h) insert "and"; and
(ii) paragraph (k) and the word "and" immediately preceding it shall cease to have effect; and

(b) in subsection (3)(a)'.

No. 301, in page 229, line 14, at end insert—

'( ) In section 2 (defined activities), after subsection (9) insert—
(10) Without prejudice to his powers to make orders or regulations under any other provision of this Part of this Act, the Secretary of State may by order provide that, from 31st March 1995 or such later date as may be specified in the order until such date as may be so specified, being a date not later than 31st December 2001, the provisions of this Part of this Act shall apply in relation to local authorities subject to such modifications as may be so specified.".

( ) In section 15 (orders, regulations etc.), in each of subsections (2) and (5), after "section 2(9)" insert "or 2(10)".'.

No. 212, in page 229, line 21, at end insert—
'(a) after the entry relating to the Peak Park Joint Planning Board insert—
The Strathclyde Passenger Transport Authority."; and
(b)'.

No. 213, in page 230, line 48, at end insert—
'( ) In section 67B(2) (tests to check whether defects have been remedied), for "a region or islands area" substitute "the area of a council constituted under section 2 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994".'.

No. 148, in page 242, line 41, after '(interpretation)' insert '—
(a)'.

No. 149, in page 242, line 44, at end insert '; and
(b) in the definition of "relevant water body", in paragraph (b), for "a water authority within the meaning of the Water (Scotland) Act 1980" substitute "a water and sewerage authority established by section 61 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994".'.—[Mr. Stewart.]

Schedule 14

Amendments made:

REPEALS

No. 150, in page 244, line 14, column 3, at end insert—

'In section 36, in subsection (2), the words "and thirty-six" and "and twenty-three" and subsections (3) and (6).'

No. 232, in page 247, line 44, column 3, at end insert—

'Section 31(4).'.

No. 165, in page 248, line 31, column 3, at end insert—

'In section 100(3), the words from "and to an additional fine" to the end.'.

No. 233, in page 248, line 52, column 3, at end insert—

'In section 133, subsection (1).'.

No. 166, in page 249, line 2, column 3, leave out 'Section' and insert—

'Sections 142 and'.

No. 151, in page 249, line 52, column 3, at end insert—

'Section 193(2).'.

No. 214, in page 249, line 59, column 3, leave out 'subsection (1A)' and insert—

'subsections (1A) and (13).'.

No. 234, in page 250, line 18, column 3, at end insert—

'Schedule I4.'.

No. 215, in page 250, line 36, at end insert—

'1975 c. 24.
The House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975.
In Schedule 1, in Part IV, the entry relating to Her Majesty's Lord-Lieutenant or Lieutenant for an islands area in Scotland and, in the entry relating to Her Majesty's Lord-Lieutenant or Lieutenant for the district of the city of Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh, or Glasgow, the words "the district of'.'.

No. 235, in page 251, line 6, column 3, after '22' insert—

', in sub-paragraph (I), head (c) and, in sub-paragraph'.

No. 236 in page 251, line 11, column 3, leave out 'paragraph' and insert 'paragraphs 24A and'

No. 237, in page 258, line 8, column 3, at end insert—

'In section 27(4), the words from "Without" to "Act".'.

No. 152, in page 258, line 14, column 3, at end insert—

'In section 121, in subsection (6), the words from "and of to "that proposal" and, in subsection (7), the words from "but the" to "his consent" and the word "nevertheless".'.

No. 216, in page 258, line 14, column 3, at end insert—

'In section 122(2)(b), subparagraph (iii) and the word "and" immediately preceding it.'.

No. 217, in page 258, line 52, column 3, at end insert—

'In section 95(2), the words "or by the district council".'.

No. 238, in page 258, line 53, column 3, leave out 'paragraph' and insert 'paragraphs 27(3)(a) and'.

No. 218, in page 259, line 27, column 3, after 'words"' insert 'and'.

No. 239, in page 259, line 45, column 3, leave out 'paragraph 11' and insert—

"in paragraph 11, the words from "and", where it first occurs, to the end.'.—[Mr. Stewart].

Clause 176

CONSEQUENTIAL AND SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS

Amendments made: No. 111, in page 122, line 10, after '1968;' insert—
' "joint committee" and "joint board" have the meanings given by section 235(1) of the 1973 Act;'.

No. 112, in page 122, line 12, after '2' insert 'of this Act'.—[Mr. Stewart.]

Clause 178

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Amendment made: No. 192, in page 123, line 16, after 'Act' insert ', except section 158,'.

Title

Amendments made: No. 153, line 21, leave out from 'to' to 'children's' in line 22.

No. 154, line 22, after 'hearings;' insert

'to amend the procedure for making byelaws under section 121

Revenue Support Grant

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

Mr. John Evans: I congratulate you, Madam Speaker, the Ministers and my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench on the speedy way in which you cleared the important business on the Bill so that I could start my even more important business on the Adjournment. I refer, of course, to the subject of the rate support grant settlement, particularly as it affects my constituency and the City of Westminster.
The Minister is well aware that I am extremely grateful to have this opportunity to speak, once again, on this subject. During the past four years, I have spoken on innumerable occasions and asked innumerable questions, both written and oral, on the rate support grant settlements. I asked a further question about it today.
I was moved to ask for the Adjournment debate because of an answer I received from the Prime Minister to an oral question. I asked the right hon. Gentleman:
Is he aware of the fact that if Westminster city council had received the same rate support grant per head of population as the borough of St. Helens it would have been forced to charge £1,019, instead of £245, for a band A property? Will the Prime Minister explain to my constituents how a rate support grant settlement that throws up such huge disparities is not politically corrupt?
I shall not bore the House with the Prime Minister's entire reply. It is sufficient to say that towards the end of the exchanges on the question he spoke of
some of the reasons why Westminster is so efficient and some of the reasons why the council deserves to be re-elected."—[Official Report, 3 May 1994; Vol. 242, c. 591.]
The Prime Minister's answer demonstrated that Her Majesty's Government were still attempting to brazen out the rigging of the grant support system in favour especially of Westminster city council and of the London borough of Wandsworth, which are often described as Tory local government flagships.
I think that all of us were also aware of some of the allegations that were surfacing about what was or was not to be broadcast in the BBC "Panorama" programme about the affairs of the city of Westminster. Indeed, I think that all of us who watched the "Panorama" programme on Monday night agree that it portrayed a shocking story of graft and corruption at the very heart of this country—the city of Westminster—and it was corruption on a scale which, I believe, is without precedent in Great Britain.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

Mr. Evans: Anyone who watched that programme recognises that Her Majesty's Government strong-armed the BBC into keeping the programme off the air during the period of the local government elections. The BBC should be condemned for bowing the knee to the threats and intimidation to which it must have been subject. That was a programme about local government in Britain in the 1990s, which everyone had a right to see, and it should have been shown for people to watch.
The votes of the people who saw the programme would have been influenced because they would have recognised,


Westminster, but that it was obvious that Ministers, and in one or two cases Conservative Members, had gone along with what had happened in that borough. Although I note, and will accept, that Members of Parliament have said that they had no knowledge of what was going on in the city of Westminster, it is interesting that, as far as I am aware, none has condemned anything that took place in that borough.
I shall concentrate on the difference in treatment of the city of Westminster and of my constituency and the borough that I represent—St. Helens. They are boroughs with similar populations and similar duties and responsibilities to their electorate. Apart from the huge discrepancies in the grants that they receive, their performance differs.
The Prime Minister, in his answer on 3 May, praised Westminster for its efficiency. If that was correct, one would have assumed that when the district auditor reported earlier this year on the accounts of Westminster city council he would be able to praise the borough. Far from that, the district auditor condemned, in terms which I have never seen before, the activities of the council and, as all of us understand it, a number of councillors in the borough and a number of the officers of the borough are facing surcharges approaching £21 million. The Evening Standard last night suggested that, following further investigations, the likely bill for the irregularities is approaching £55 million. We shall all be interested to know the outcome.
St. Helens is a borough which was hard done by by the Government in the past three or four years. The district auditor's report for St. Helens highly praised the borough and all that it had done in the past year.
In his annual report, District Auditor Frank Kerkham gives special mention to the Council's 'sound and business like' management.
Among services most praised was the way the Authority collects and monitors Council Tax collections. He says: 'By the end of October 1993 the money owed in Council Tax was £4.9 million. This represents 3.9 per cent. of the gross debit for three years of the community charge's existence.'
This represents a good performance given that the Authority has had to introduce and collect the Council Tax in tandem with collecting residual community charge.
He went on to praise the borough in a number of other ways. Thus a borough that had been desperately strapped for support grant from the Government was praised for its efficiency by the district auditor.
Because revenue support grant is distributed according to the standard spending assessment formulae, this year Westminster received £2,622 per primary school pupil whereas St. Helens received £1,851—a difference of £770. Does it cost that much more to educate a primary school child in Westminster? In secondary education, the position is even worse. Westminster receives a grant per pupil of £3,677, whereas St. Helens receives £2,590 per pupil—a difference of more than £1,000. Why should St. Helens school children be regarded as so much cheaper to educate than children in Westminster?

Mr. William O'Brien: I appreciate the opportunity to support my hon. Friend in his Adjournment debate. The comparison that he makes between the boroughs of St. Helens and Westminster is identical to the comparison between Wakefield district council and

Westminster. Will my hon. Friend mention the other authorities in the Webber Craig group, which is a group of authorities that includes St. Helens and Wakefield?
My hon. Friend mentioned SSAs. In March 1994, the Secretary of State issued a report that said:
The Government has consistently taken the view that SSA is an appropriate benchmark against which to consider whether spending decisions of an authority have resulted in a budget which is excessive.
Neither St. Helens nor Wakefield has spent excessively. The figures for education in Westminster are evidence of excesses. If there was to be capping, that is where it should have been.

Mr. Evans: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing to the attention of the House the fact that his authority, like another five authorities that are grouped in what is known as the Webber Craig group, which are well known to the Minister, suffers from similar problems.
The position with social services is just as bad as that with education. Westminster receives more than £18 million more for its social services than St. Helens. The position was graphically described in the St. Helens Star on 6 January 1994 when it said:
St Helens received a massive £18 million less a year than Westminster to spend on these vital services. That's £994 less to spend on each of our elderly people.
For every elderly person living in the Borough, the Council receives just £131 compared to Westminster's £257—almost double what St Helens receives.
That shows how an authority at one end of the country receives substantially more to look after its elderly citizens than a borough at the other end of the country.
St. Helens has had a raw deal ever since SSAs were first established. Because of how they were calculated, St. Helens has had to cut no less than £20 million from its budget in the past three years. The council has had to close a library, an elderly persons' home, a family centre, a day nursery and a day centre and increase charges for school meals, meals on wheels and home helps. Regrettably, the cuts have been inflicted on the elderly and the very young—the most defenceless people in the community.
I want to put to the Minister some of the questions that constituents have asked me on many occasions. In the borough of St. Helens there is considerable resentment about how people are treated. I pay tribute to the local newspapers, the St. Helens Star and the St. Helens Reporter, which have regularly featured these issues so that citizens may understand precisely what is going on.
How can it be fair that an authority such as the one in Westminster, with a population only 4 per cent. higher, receives 70 per cent. more in terms of SSAs and 116 per cent. more in revenue support grant than my council? The sums of money involved are huge. My constituents, who know that their council is efficient, would have to be charged twice the council tax that people in Westminster have to pay. Obviously they are extremely angry about this.
The Government's SSA of £220 million for Westminster is supposed to reflect the council's need to provide services at a standard level. Does not the fact that Westminster spends £3 million less mean that it is failing to provide services at that level? Is not revenue support grant distributed according to SSAs? If Westminster is spending less than the SSA, it must be receiving rate support grant in respect of expenditure that it is not incurring. Surely that cannot be justified.
If the Prime Minister argues, as he did in a parliamentary answer to me on 3 May, that Westminster has achieved efficiency savings—he pointed out that £11 million had been saved as a result of compulsory competitive tendering: the equivalent of £110 in council tax—why is the council still receiving rate support grant as if it had not achieved those savings? Should not its SSA be reduced to reflect them?
The Prime Minister's reference, in his reply to me, to the loss of SSA in Wandsworth was irrelevant. I had not mentioned Wandsworth; I had referred simply to Westminster and St. Helens. It is true that Wandsworth lost standard spending assessment, but it was given £26 million in SSA reduction grant to cushion the effect. Westminster received a reduction grant of £7 million. Both authorities benefited because of the change in SSA methodology. There was no such cushion when, in 1991, St. Helens was capped. We lost £6 million, on the basis of the national average, as a result of the switch from what was known as grant-related expenditure assessment—GREA—to SSAs. There was no preferential treatment for St. Helens on that occasion.
I am quite happy to put on record the fact that we in St. Helens and the other Webber Craig authorities are grateful for some of the changes in SSA calculations this year. I should like to make it clear that they have been beneficial. We recognise that the inclusion of the long-term unemployed—a measure for which we fought for a long time—has been advantageous, and we give credit to Ministers for listening to the arguments that we put forward in meetings last year and for going part of the way towards meeting our case.
In answer to my question 7 today, the Minister of State indicated that discussions with the local authority associations about revision of the SSAs were continuing. I and, I am sure, my colleagues in the Webber Craig authorities warmly welcome those discussions and trust that they will be brought to a happy conclusion.
I should like to ask the Minister to consider the inclusion of two or three items. We believe that account should be taken of the fact that the provision of nursery education ought to be based on the actual number of children rather than on proxy figures. After all, we know exactly how many under-fives in St. Helens are being educated. Could not the actual, not the proxy, figures be used? The construction of the additional educational needs index should also be reconsidered, as it is based on three rather broad proxy figures: children of lone parents, children of benefit claimants and children of ethnic origin.?
I suggest that the numbers of statemented children could be considered in this context—they are statemented, after all, so as to receive the special education that they so badly need. I also suggest that the assessment of the number of children at risk should be based on actual numbers, not on proxies. St. Helens, like most other authorities, knows exactly how many children are on its at-risk register.
As I said the last time I spoke in a debate on this subject —indeed, I have often said it—local government finance is a complex, mysterious and arcane subject, and I suspect that only local authority finance executives understand it. The rest of us have to work very hard—I suspect that the Minister sometimes has to work even harder—to keep up with the jargon and the changing patterns involved in mastering this complex subject.
I should point out, however, that local government finance affects every person in the land. After all, it used

to be reflected in people's rates; then in the community charge; now in the council tax. It is thus important that we try to get it right. I thank the Minister of State and the Under-Secretary for listening to the authorities and trying to produce a fairer system. They can rest assured that if they produce figures which are fairer, and which therefore benefit our hard-pressed constituents, we will be grateful.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): It will help the House if I briefly set out the general principles and mechanisms of the local government finance settlement before turning to the points about St. Helens made by the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans). I hope that both the St. Helens Star and the St. Helens Reporter will give my comments extensive coverage.
Government support for local authority spending this year will be £34.3 billion, a large sum of money representing an increase of 1.7 per cent. on the amount spent in the previous year. That is fair settlement, consistent with our determination to maintain a firm grip on public spending, of which local government accounts for about a quarter. Clearly, the total amount of money available for local government spending has to be distributed to the various local authorities in the fairest possible way—there is no argument about that.
That is done by means of the revenue support grant, which is distributed to local authorities by reference to standard spending assessments. SSAs are an objective, statistically based measure of the amount that an authority needs to spend to deliver a standard level of service. In other words, having regard to different populations and different needs, each local authority should be treated—and as far as the Government are concerned, will be treated—equally.
Our aim is to ensure that the available resources are divided fairly, so that each authority is placed on an equal footing. Of course, that is not an easy task. In evidence to the Environment Select Committee, the local authority associations said:
The distribution of grant to 420 authorities in England on an equitable basis is a complex task and it is not surprising that the extensive analysis and research over the years has shown that there are no simple answers.
But we do try extremely hard. The Audit Commission observed that
the SSA system … is a more sophisticated system for equalising needs than any overseas system examined in this study and it is an improvement on its predecessor in many respects.
Last year, we carried out a thorough review of the calculation of the standard spending assessment which incorporated an in-depth look at all the points that the hon. Gentleman raised relating to St. Helens. The review was prompted by the need to incorporate new data on social conditions from the 1991 census, but we also took the opportunity to carry out a root and branch review of the SSA formula more generally.
The review was carried out in close co-operation with the local authority associations. We made the underlying data freely available to the associations and provided exemplifications of any option which the associations wished to consider. I and ministerial colleagues also met delegations from more than 30 individual local authorities to hear their views and discuss their ideas.
The Environment Select Committee has recently produced a report on SSAs. One of the Committee's first conclusions in that report is this:
We welcome the openness with which this year's SSA review has been carried out, and we trust the approach will continue in future years.
So do we.
One of the Committee's final conclusions is:
We recognise that the changes to the SSA methodology this year have led to some commonsense improvement in the 1994–95 proposals.
I hope that we will continue to earn the commendation of independent experts and the Select Committee for the fact that our proposals for SSAs are arrived at through open and co-operative discussion and are both common sense and fair.

Mr. William O'Brien: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Baldry: No.
Just because we aim to ensure a fair distribution does not mean that everyone will be happy with the result. I totally refute any suggestion that the distribution system is somehow rigged in a party political way. If anyone cares to look at the figures, they will see that a large number of the local authorities that have gained this year as a result of recent SSA changes are Labour-controlled authorities.
In his evidence to the Select Committee, Mr. Tony Travers, who is generally recognised as an objective and informed academic in this area, said:
A number of commentators have accused SSAs of being politically rigged … Yet there is no evidence of such political intervention".
The review of SSAs last year was thorough and wide ranging and I agree with the Select Committee that there will always be a trade-off between improving the technical content of the SSAs and increasing its complexity.
I do not plan such a wide-ranging review this year. Of course, that does not mean that there will be no changes. We will always continue to discuss the SSA methodology with local authority associations and with individual authorities which wish to make a contribution.
St. Helens was one of the authorities that benefited from the review of SSAs. It got more money this year than it would have done under the old formula—although I recognise that it was not as much as some other authorities, nor evidently as much as the hon. Gentleman would have liked.
St. Helens SSA went up by just over 3 per cent.—more than the average for metropolitan districts of 1.3 per cent.—and under the capping rules St. Helens can set a budget some 5 per cent. above SSA. If one compares what St. Helens actually spent last year with what it can spend this year—comparing like with like—that is a permitted increase of 1.7 per cent. It is an increase and in no way a cut.
St. Helens education SSA increased by 3.1 per cent.; its personal social services SSA increased by 5.7 per cent. and its all other services block SSA increased by almost 11 per cent. As a result of the introduction of an index measuring economic circumstances, for which St. Helens and others in the Webber Craig group of local authorities have campaigned, it did extremely well.
St. Helens will also benefit from committed spending under the single regeneration budget of £11.4 million in 1994–95 and a share of the £1 billion objective 1

programme money for Merseyside. The Department of Transport has also been able to provide an extra £6.6 million of borrowing approvals to help finance the additional costs of the M62 link road—again in response to a case put by St. Helens in which Environment Ministers took a close interest.
I am disappointed by the hon. Gentleman's comparison with Westminster. I think it is cheap stuff; I think it is poor stuff. It is belittling and it is not worthy of the hon. Gentleman.
The measures used to arrive at the standard spending assessment for Westminster are exactly the same measures as are used for every other authority. They give a higher SSA per head than in St. Helens simply because that is what the statistics show. But the statistics also show that 23 out of the 32 London boroughs get more per head than St. Helens, irrespective of political control.
The SSA review this year reduced Westminster's SSA by 1.6 per cent.—a greater reduction than the average for inner London boroughs. Total external support per head for Westminster—made up of revenue support grant, redistributed business rates and SSA reduction grant—is below the average for inner London boroughs. The low level of council tax in Westminster is, in large measure, simply a reflection of the excellent budgeting by Westminster council, which set a budget some 11.6 per cent. below SSA.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will study the SSA grants for the London boroughs this year. Having done so, I hope that he will take back any scintilla of a suggestion that they have been politically rigged. Conservative-controlled Kensington and Chelsea has had a reduction in its SSA grant this year of 8.3 per cent. In Conservative-controlled Wandsworth, there has been a reduction in SSA of 10.6 per cent. Conservative-controlled Brent has seen a reduction in its SSA of 8.5 per cent. Ealing, which, at the time that the SSA was set, was Conservative controlled, has seen a reduction in SSA of 3.8 per cent. Redbridge, which, at the time that the SSA was set, was also Conservative-controlled, has seen an SSA reduction of 1 per cent.
The hon. Gentleman could then look at some of the Labour-controlled boroughs in London. Greenwich has had an increase of 7.6 per cent. in its SSA grant. The SSA grant for Barking and Dagenham has increased by 11.8 per cent. The grant for Hillingdon has increased by 7.7 per cent., and so on. It is complete nonsense to suggest that any of the SSAs are politically rigged in any way. They are set objectively using the best possible criteria after lengthy and extensive discussions with the local authority associations.

Mr. Evans: Will the Minister spend one minute explaining to the people of St. Helens why Westminster receives £1,000 more per child for secondary education as compared with St. Helens?

Mr. Baldry: If the hon. Gentleman reads Hansard tomorrow, marks out the word "Westminster" and puts in its place practically any other London borough, he could make exactly the same speech again replacing the word "Westminster" with "Greenwich", "Lambeth", "Newham" or "Islington". That is simply because that is what the statistics demonstrate in terms of need and in terms of the formula that has been worked out openly and objectively with the local authority associations.
I am delighted that St. Helens has welcomed the review of the SSAs and, in particular, the inclusion of health and economic indicators. The work that we have done this year with the Webber Craig group of authorities clearly demonstrates our preparedness and determination to make the system as fair as possible.
Expert independent commentators agree that the process by which we decide the distribution of resources between authorities is as open and as fair as practicable without creating a system that is impossibly complex. The formula is exhaustively discussed with local authority representatives and the data come from statistical returns which are common to all local authority areas.
I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman would like to see St. Helens do better from the system. Many hon. Members would like their areas to do better. Of course, we shall continue to strive to balance these conflicting demands as fairly and reasonably as possible. In a system such as this there may always be scope for further improvements.
As I have made clear, we are always happy to consider with the local authority associations any proposals for improvements. But the improvements will be objective and they will apply to every local authority, irrespective of political complexion. If St. Helens wishes to press further for specific changes to the SSAs, it needs first to seek to persuade other local authorities to put a case to us in the discussions that are already under way. As always, any case that is put forward will be discussed openly with a view to arriving at an approach that is fair to all authorities.
In the meantime, I am sure that St. Helens council wants to make the best use of the £105 million of grant that has been made available to it this year, in addition to the money that it has—

The motion having been made at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.